Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men has not exactly shown much of an interest in trans* issues in the past. Indeed, the only time I can recall founder Paul Elam ever even mentioning trans* people was in the context of a vicious attack on a Men’s Studies expert who happens to be a trans woman; he suggested she was a mentally ill man-hater whose “so hated the sex they were born with that it sparked a life long academic quest to deconstruct it into something that did not disgust them.”
So it’s a little surprising to see a post on AVFM now with the seemingly dispassionate, slightly turgid, title “Male/female discrepancies in transsexualism.” The post starts out as dry as its title, but it soon becomes clear that it is “scientific” in style only. It’s not an attempt to understand trans women or trans people in general; it’s an attempt to use the existence of trans women as a helpful prop in an old Men’s Rights argument.
After declaring that “the inherent,prenatal explanations for transsexualism are highly questionable” — without actually examining any of these explanations beyond mentioning one study — Jesse Folsom offers his own crackpot theory to explain why, in his words, there are more “male-to-female [than] female-to-male transsexuals.”
In short, he asserts, our society is so biased against boys and men that a lot of boys and men have decided that they want to become girls and women. And naturally, feminists are largely to blame.
[W]hy would a young boy associate more with the stereotypes assigned to girls? Well, one good reason would be because he wants to, because he regards his stereotypes of women as superior. For instance, in a feminist household, expressions of masculinity may be viewed with derision, or, when there is a father present, as a source of shame.
Also, in case you hadn’t realized this, most mothers are women as well:
Even without such associations, however, a child often just spends more time with his or her mother.
Oh, and so are teachers. It’s like there’s some sort of plot!
While it does not occur until after a large proportion of gender ideas are formed, school also exposes children, primarily, to female role models. Not to mention the fact that many behaviors typical of boys are frowned upon and even drugged out of them in modern school environments.
As a result, young boys have no real role models in society.
And where do boys find themselves today? Today, women can be anything they want. Women can be action heroes, happy homemakers, corporate executives, and powerful politicians.
Obviously there are no examples of men in any of these roles for boys to look up to.
There are two categories of fashion, fashion for everyone and fashion for women only. Women are the ones seen as beautiful and glamorous. Women are kind, gentle, empathetic, and allowed to freely express emotion. With the traditional strengths of men now seen as irrelevant or even negative, why wouldn’t a boy rather be a girl? Is this not as good an explanation as any for the discrepancies between MtF and FtM transsexualism?
Well, actually, no. But Folsom continues, insinuating that this evil feministy brainwashing does terrible damage to all the poor little boys who have decided that they want to be girls:
It is simply implausible that a child that associates with the opposite sex label has any real understanding of what that means, but unfortunately, such associations often stick. Further, this gender dysphoria is extremely harmful, frequently leading to severe depression and high suicide and poverty rates for transsexuals. As one might expect, researchers believe that male-to-female transsexuals are the hardest-hit by these problems.
Aside from all the general bullshittery of Folsom’s not-very-original theory here, it’s telling that he never refers to trans women as, well, women, preferring instead to refer to them either as male-to-female transsexuals — or to actually refer to them as male. Like Elam, clearly doesn’t see trans women as real women, but rather as men suffering from some sort of delusion, driven by internalized misandry.
And that’s really the only way that AVFM can have any sympathy for trans women at all: if they’re seen as male victims of feminism, and not as women at all.
Regular Man Boobz commenter Ally S ventured into the Men’s Rights subreddit to offer a rather more nuanced view of the subject. Some highlights:
This article is almost exactly like countless articles written by trans-exclusionary radical feminists. The only real difference is that the arguments are being used to further support MRA talking points rather than TERF talking points. …
When I was little, I didn’t identify as a girl because I associated more with femininity and stereotypes about girls. It was the other way around: I came to associate more with femininity and stereotypes about girls because I identified as a girl. Just as cis girls associate with stereotypes related to their own gender. …
I guarantee that virtually any trans woman will say that adherence to stereotypes and misandry have nothing to do with identifying as female. That’s because there’s a difference between gender identity and gender expression. Personally, I am a trans woman, but my clothing style is basically agender and I engage in what are often considered masculine activities, such as programming. And when I was a child, I actually saw feminine traits as inferior, not superior – yet I still identified as a girl. I have many friends who have had similar experiences. …
Lastly, deliberately misgendering trans women (you know, what the author does in every other sentence) is completely unacceptable, even if one is speaking about young children. We are not and never will be men.
You can see Ally’s entire comment here, as well as a number of detailed followups. Amazingly, they actually got upvotes in the Men’s Rights subreddit, where Folsom’s article received a generally hostile reception. Apparently some of AVFM’s bullshit is so bullshitty that even Men’s Rights Redditors can recognize it as such.
Hurting the precious feelings of denizens of the Manosphere did not turn “the 20/20 team [into] the laughing stock in the business” and it’s absurd (and groundless) to claim Vargas’ going to rehab has anything to do with one interview with a nobody like Paul Elam.
As a side note, please research the Watergate scandal (or at least watch All The President’s Men) before making any more nonsensical references to Deep Throat. Casting David as Deep Throat in your fever dream may be the goofiest thing you said in a post that’s brimming with goofiness.
Shouldn’t a journalism professor (or even a high school teacher) know that the whole point of Deep Throat was that he was an inside source? Unless trolly-who-I-think-is-a-sock is trying to imply that David is or used to be an MRA, his analogy is broken.
(Now if The Wooly Bumblebee got pissed off enough to talk shit about her former buddies, she could be the MRMs Deep Throat, if the MRM was important enough for journalists to care about writing serious exposes about it.)
Do you wanna bee? I havva bee.
Katz is bringing you a baby bumble bee…
Unfortunately it’s only a half a bee.
Maybe Rainer needs to talk Eddie Izzard.
Now that’s a real wanna bee!
Nein!!
Not to mention that even if she had been about to report a bunch of lies and distortions, that wouldn’t make her a laughing stock. If he really is using the American media to teach his German students (odd, but let’s go with it), you’d think he’d know that lying isn’t necessarily the career-ending scandal it used to be.
Besides, as long as Glenn Beck is still broadcasting, no one else can be the laughing stock of the business.
What, not even Rush?
They’re pretty close, Kittehs, but Beck’s nonsensical charts and tearful declarations of patriotism really upped the humor factor of his TV show, and I doubt his radio show is much better.
Rush was excellent and I hear Twelve Years a Slave was as well, but other than that, it’s been a pretty bland year. I’m actually not too hopeful for 2014 either; if nothing else, I foresee many arguments in this particular household about the Lego movie.
Wait, why did I think we were talking about movies? Was that a different thread?
I think that was the New Years thread. Of course…there’s a Lego movie?!
The Lego Movie will surely rock.
Will Arnett voicing Batman. = My world filled with endless joy.
I meant Rush as in Limbaugh; sorry, that word gets used for too many things! I still think of the 1970s series made here, set in the goldfields and starring the then young and beautiful John Waters as Sergeant McKellar.
(No, not the director John Waters, the Australian actor John Waters.)
For the love of all that is holy, please please please please please delete the infernal asterisk. It is the most obnoxiously othering and completely unnecessary character in all of queer* thought. See how completely unnecessary that asterisk in queer* was? Is queer* without an asterisk broad enough to encompass many diverse experiences? Then why in the name of Silvia Rivera is an asterisk necessary for the word “trans”?
Oh, and I don’t have waist-length hair, but the merest exertion makes me sweat behind my ears and along my collar, so I like to keep it cut fairly short.
@Lyss, I’m gonna go ahead and guess that David took his stylistic cues from the many trans* people who post here. Take it up with them if you don’t like it.
Don’t look at me, I never used the asterisk because I apparently missed that debate and don’t know what it’s actually used FOR. <.< If some other, more educated trans person than me wants to explain, by all means! (I think it dates back to the transsexual vs. transgender wars? But I never wanted much to do with those either.)
Also LOLZ trollfail. I love how they always cry, "lies! LIES!" but never actually say WHAT THE LIES ARE. You'd think a journalist teacher would be better at it.
Is it Pell again? Nah, Pell's more regular…
Lyss: From a stylistic perspective, I’m with you — the asterisk is about as useful as the hash in a hashtag — but I think most of the trans* people I’ve talked to prefer it and they have reasons that they’d be better at explaining and even if they didn’t I’d go along with what they preferred since I’m not trans* and I don’t want to go around defining what terms they ought to use.
I have to say I really dislike the asterisk version of trans. You can’t say trans*, it’s worthless when googling and who wants their life experience to be represented by a freaking asterisk? If you don’t want to say transexual or transgender, then say trans. Trans* just seems affected, patronizing and silly. So I know where Lyss is coming from, though I realize it’s a personal preference and YMMV.
@Katz
If people request to be called trans* I’ll happily role with it, but most trans people I know don’t prefer it. It certainly doesn’t come up in conversation. After seeing people take shit on the internet because they prefer to call themselves transsexual, I’m not a fan of people who turn the personal preferences into universal moral imperatives. Everyone should honor what people want to call themselves, but no one speaks for an entire group.
RE: the term trans*
Within the trans community in general, there is still some denialism regarding transmisogyny; there are trans people who attempt to silence discussions regarding the uniqueness of anti-trans-woman oppression under the pretense of “We’re all in this together.” It’s a form of trans woman erasure, in other words.
Because the asterisk is intended to denote broadness and inclusion, it is seen as a symbol of homogenization that silences trans people who are oppressed by transmisogyny. It’s kind of like telling a cis woman that she shouldn’t complain about misogyny because everyone is oppressed by sexism, misandry, etc.
I personally don’t see the asterisk as a symbol of erasure, but I avoid using it anyway because I have never run into anyone who actually has a problem with not using the asterisk and because a lot of trans women I know are averse to it.
Basically, my advice for anyone who is confused about the asterisk is to just avoid using it.