Check out Margaret Corvid’s fascinating piece in the New Statesman on male sexuality and the appeal of misogynistic movements to sexually frustrated men. As a professional dominatrix who’s also a feminist, she’s acutely aware of the ways conventional masculinity restricts and impoverishes male sexuality.
When I became a professional dominatrix after years in the kink scene, I expected my kinky work to involve lots of spanking, whipping and bondage. And, to my delight, it has. But in the majority of my sessions, I am creating a space for men to explore areas of their sexual lives that society feels are unmanly; they come to me to be penetrated, to be used, to serve, to submit, to worship, to be taken. A client might have any or all of a bewildering array of fetishes, but they mostly come to me to experience something well outside the very narrow confines of what society says that it means to be a man.
Unfortunately, as she notes, Men’s Rightsers and Pickup Artists offer nothing to men who feel confined by these narrow notions of manhood; indeed, their definitions of manhood are both retrograde and restrictive.
One of the greatest tragedies of the men’s rights movement is that, in the end, its lessons serve only to drive men further away from what they yearn for. Pick up artist techniques and aggrieved entitlement are unlikely to help men achieve the goal of intimacy, but feminist values can teach them the skills to communicate with respect.
You’ll notice a few quotes in there from me, from an email interview she did with me as well as from my post Is the Men’s Rights Movement driven by the rage of the rejected? (I also discussed the issue in this post on the weird sexual undercurrents in A Voice for Men’s Facebook “memes.”)
Apologies, I might not have been clear. I don’t want you to just name names. I want you to name names and actually respond to the things actual people here are actually saying. Argue with the actual contents of the room.
I want you to not use those responses as a way to insinuate that anyone would think trans people are rotten meat or malfunctioning or hidden-rapists waiting to spring.
I want you to, if a discussion is your aim, discuss. Not by mentioning conversations you had with other people over e-mail, but by pointing out the actual statements people here have actually made, why they’re wrong, how they’re wrong, and why making them are bad things.
I do *not* want you to sweep in, proclaim that people think trans women are all men or that anyone here would somehow insinuate that you love your children less than other people.
What kind of argument is that, even? Certainly not one anyone here has actually made. Or would ever actually make.
I want this space to open and welcoming to all who aren’t trolls. I have trans friends, for god fucking sake. I certainly don’t think they’re rotten meat nor that they don’t love their children.
So yeah, thanks David. You do a lot to make this place open and welcome, and that’s the way it should definitively be.
Since this conversations, however, somewhat unproductive right now, I guess it is best to just let it die off.
How about that [Weather] or [Sport’s Team], everybody?
Ally is young and figuring things out, plus I found her usually to be open to debate and very thoughtful. Yes, her going to Feministe to complain about how horrible we are is very petty and Fibi was right to call her on it, but she didn’t do terrible things we need to harp on.
Thanks, Alex and brooked.
And, as we can see, I’m labelled a TERF because I refer to the XY as biologically male.
Give me rest.
When people start telling me all about X and Y chromosomes, I usually glaze over, nod my head, and try to get out of the conversation. Why is that? Well, generally speaking, most of the people who utilize that argument as if it was a biology 101 trump card do not actually understand much of anything about the science of genetics. Ask them what a Mendelian Square is, or what are introns, or to name at least two of the four basic components of DNA, or what a genetic chimera is, and they get a confused look as if to say “Buh?”
Everyone on this room who has had their DNA sequenced and received a report on what shape their SRY gene is in? Nobody? Me neither. But arguing with a transsexual woman about sex chromosomes is like arguing with a nuclear power plant worker about fission, you’re carrying rocks to Newcastle and only some of them are even coal. Wow that was one mixed metaphor.
Thanks, David. Also, apologies for what I said before Fibi revealed that Donna L was coming from Feministe because Ally had complained about us. I assumed that she was here in good faith.
Honestly, brooked, I disagree. I thought Ally abused the good faith of the commentariat here horribly (it did not help that many people coddled her and policed the comment section in accordance with her wishes, giving the impression the way she conducted herself was OK and preventing her from learning a damn thing) and it made a lot of people who she effectively silenced feel devalued and angry. That was not OK or fair.
To be honest, aside from being creeped out by it’s implications, the remark about lesbians who don’t want to have sex with trans lesbians possibly being transphobes and able to get over that aversion, didn’t set me off. It’s just something with some really terrible implications Ally needed to be informed about so she could know how she might come across when she expresses it. I don’t for a second think she was demanding cis lesbians start putting out for trans lesbians in spite of that aversion.
My problem has always been the pattern of behaviour, which is using emotions to hold discussions hostage and some people’s unfortunate habit of catering to that shtick. I have very low tolerance for that.
@marinerachel,
Did Ally ever acknowledge that her statement about lesbians who didn’t want trans women potentially being transphobic had problematic implications that she didn’t intend? I know that she wasn’t encouraging any one to put out for someone to whom they weren’t attracted, for the record.
friday jones: Just a heads up that, while it might be true that in general you know way more about chromosomes than other people, that may not be the tack you want to take with marinerachel.
And my eyes glaze over when I’m told I’m a transphobe for referring to particular karyotypes as male or female in any organism.
I don’t think it has any relevance to the gender someone identifies as and I would NEVER bring it up with someone because it’s none of my goddamn business, but when others brings it up and try to police how scientists refer to combinations of chromosomes boundaries are being overstepped.
I’ve examined my own chromosomes extensively because I’m not XX – something accidentally stumbled upon during testing for something completely irrelevant – it’s my field of study and I’m a great case study and because it’s mine and my doctors’ responsibility to look for the potential genetic causes of any disorder or disease I may suffer from or pass on. The thing is I don’t throw a fit when my chromosome combination isn’t referred to as female because it isn’t. That doesn’t mean I’m not female. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a female body. It doesn’t mean I’m not perceived as and referred to as female. It doesn’t mean I’m excluded from the female club.. It just means I don’t have a female chromosome combination and that’s OK. The world doesn’t have to cater to my precious feels because I can handle the reality that, though I’m a woman, my karyotype is not that which is generally associated with my gender and body and hormones.
I have no idea, alaisvex. As previously said, the remark wasn’t even THAT problematic to me, no more so than a lot of the anti-trans stuff I’ve read here. It was the pattern of behaviour and how it was affecting a lot of us that I was appalled by.
I believe that IN GENERAL the conversations about sexual genetics belongs in clinics and labs and schools, not on web sites designed for discussing social issues. Otherwise it’s probably the equivalent of the Phrenology lesson in “Django Unchained,” a bit of cargo-science hand-waving designed to persuade people who aren’t up on the subject.
Thank you, David. I’m seconding katz.
As for what people are saying about me commenting on Feministe: it wasn’t two-faced of me to vent my frustrations about WHTM elsewhere. It’s no secret among the observers of the previous thread of doom that I’m no longer a fan of this place, and it’s entirely non-contradictory for me to both complain elsewhere about certain aspects of this place and also express a wish for good-faith discussions here. Like many others here, I want to see this place improve and become the safe and friendly space it once was, not be destroyed.
And the people I was venting about were the transmisogynists, not every single person here. Obviously most people here aren’t transmisogynistic and I don’t want to unfairly label them. The only people to whom my specific complaints applied are the people who have actually been engaging in the behavior I was complaining about, which clearly doesn’t include everyone. People who read that thread (linked in the previous page) will see proof of that.
For example: The SRY does not directly control the development of the natal endocrine system, and a lot of the way our bodies develop is due to endocrine secretion. As we grow up from infants to adults, our bodies and brains are shaped by glandular secretions that are only indirectly affected by the glands that ARE directly affected by the SRY. The indirect effects on secondary sexual characteristics are evidenced by, for a single example, the varying growth rates between boys and girls when the pituitary gland responds to sex hormones. Yet the pituitary itself is not directly affected by the SRY, only indirectly.
Castle has been banned as a probable troll.
Sorry, did you mean a Punnet square? They map Mendelian genetic outcomes. Non coding RNA segments. Did you mean the three basic components ( deoxyribose sugar, phospheric acid and nitrogenic base) or did you mean the 4 basis segments (thymine, guanine, cytosine and adenine)? Single organism, genetically distinct cells.
Hey, 2 out of 4 terms ain’t bad for a layman. What? Clearly, if you don’t know the terminology, I’m right to assume you know nothing about the subject and ignore your statements. Right?
… again, all I’m asking is that maybe everyone tries to be a little less snarky.
(I’m aware you’re probably more educated than me re: biology. My point rather still stands)
When people mention that sometimes TERF seems to be a slur intended to silence, they’re referencing (for example) someone being lumped in with others for going on about karotypic genetic differences in the composite chromosones of individuals. Or, I guess, me being a TERF for… honestly I’m not sure? Wanting nicer debate tones? Hyperbolic expressions of lunar infrastructure expansion? I get that I can be fucking annoying, but I try not to be exclusionary to anyone in that annoyance.
@AllyS:
Okay, that’s awesome and I apologize if I was inadvertedly ascribing you some pretty dark motivations there. It was just that the combination of that plus the little asides about the people who hate you or the ones you don’t appreciate etc. got me. That really did seem less like a “I want to talk about this” than a “I want to catch out the meanies who betrayed me”. I’m glad that’s not the case.
Final comment: I didn’t claim that anyone here has said that trans women are men, except indirectly by linking to places that do so. (Places which in my mind, aren’t far making Raymond/Brennan/Jeffries claims, which was exactly why I asked “what’s next,” to find out what’s considered acceptable here. Now I know.) I was addressing the sex vs. gender issue, and I don’t think there’s any question that there are people here who make the distinction between “women” and “female,” necessarily implying that trans women are “male women” of some kind. Marinerachel, I never said that you claimed that trans women are men either. You’re missing the point: even accepting arguendo that “biological sex” = chromosomes, I never limited my point to “biological sex.” I think you said you’re a scientist, but I’m a lawyer. Legally, sex is not, and never has been, assigned or determined by chromosomes. My driver’s license? Sex designation, not gender. Passport? Sex, not gender. Birth certificate, when I get around to changing it? Sex, not gender. I couldn’t care less what my chromosomes are.
I am impressed that you can use a search engine so well, Fibinachi. :p
I’m no mathematician, but I bet if I ran “Fibonacci spiral” into a search engine I could sound like one!
And I’m a scientist and in order to do my job I have to know sex and I have to know the difference between sex and gender. The only reason things like our passports and driver’s licenses and birth certificates say “sex” is because of the outdated presupposition that our gender and sex are the same thing as sex determines gender (not but whatev.) Within biology, sex has always, ultimately, come down to chromosomes which may or may not determine hormones and body conformation and gender.
I don’t want to speak for marinerachel, but I believe she was not saying that she wishes to impose on trans women by bringing up Y chromosomes. I think she was saying that she doesn’t want to be given a hard time by anyone for talking about biological sex in a context that has nothing to do with trans people or issues. That language here shouldn’t be policed in a stereotypical tumblr way.
Which I would agree with. I don’t want an environment where everyone is walking on eggshells.
With that said, I do want an environment that is more friendly to trans women. I know that I don’t know everything when it comes to trans issues and if I say something wrong, I do want to be told so I can correct it. It would be more productive, if someone says something problematic , to have that quoted and pointed out. Coming here and saying the whole space is transphobic doesn’t help. Not that anyone is required to educate others at all times, but putting everyone on the defensive will only lead to fighting.
There is no good reason to have either sex or gender as a designation on a passport. Not in a civilized world at least. There are biometric identifiers that you can’t hide easily with a push-up bra or a gaff or some ace bandage, such as a picture of the face, that should be more than descriptive enough to connect the person with the document.
Official sex markers are a distinct feature of the Patriarchy.
David, thanks for setting some ground rules. When I tried to say that no trans-exclusionary folks were welcome here, thinking it was true based on what peope on either “side” were saying, I was seriously put off when practically the first thing that happened was that a literal trans-exclusionary person was suddenly welcomed with no questions asked.
May I ask for one thing from folks here? Obviously the argument is going to continue forever, but can we press the reset switch? Drop our current lines of argument and only bring them up again if someone actually tries to make the argument we’re fighting against? From now on only criticising what people do directly without making assumptions of what they must think?
I’m not asking for people to silence themselves, I’m just requesting that everyone drop some of the baggage they’ve been carrying around, since baggage tends to grow heavier with time and distance from the original trigger…
I’m not in favour of sex or gender on documentation either. It’s dumb. It’s one of the more unhelpful identifying markers we use.
But thank you, WWTH.
Based on more recent comments: when David approved my initial comment, he knew that I had come here from Feministe, because I sent him an email with a copy of what I had posted, plus an explanation of why I had done so. And it’s not like I never heard of this place before: I’ve read here a lot, for several years, since before this place changed its name. As well as a number of the threads in 2014 that led to Ally’s departure. So it’s hardly fair to accuse me of not being here in good faith because the immediate impetus for my finally commenting was reading this thread after Ally mentioned it on Feministe. Everyone has a reason to comment for the first time.
And the outcome of this thread was exactly what I hoped for — a clarification of policy from the blog owner that took into account input from trans women, here and by email.
I also think it’s atrociously inappropriate for anyone to engage in character assassination with respect to Ally. And that’s what I think Alex’s comment amounts to. Toxic? Really?
Yeah, because stating a sequence of events and how someone conducted themself during that time is character assassination.
It’s a description of someone behaving badly, actually. Your legal expertise are not required on this matter.
I came here because I found the community here to be nice and supportive. I didn’t want to manipulate anyone here. Was I occasionally bothered by the transmisogyny I saw? Of course. But I fail to see how being upset at some people for using transmisogynistic language is any different from being upset at some people for using ableist language (which happens regularly here and is rightfully accepted by almost everyone to this day).
As for why it was me in particular who did most of those call-outs of transmisogyny: that’s because for the longest time, I was one of the only trans women there, and there were things that most of the cis people weren’t noticing that I wanted to point out. Privilege causes many people to overlook the ways in which their language/beliefs may contribute to the oppression they benefit from, even when they don’t mean to be bigoted. I know that at times I was pretty annoyed at certain people, and I’m very sorry for the times I went too far, but most of the time I didn’t react unreasonably. I don’t have the luxury of avoiding transmisogyny, and sometimes even when people don’t intend to be hurtful, instances of transmisogyny from those people get to me. Just as sexist microaggressions can cause women to get upset at the people perpetuating them, even when those people don’t intend to be misogynistic. Intent isn’t magic, as people say.
I didn’t say that, and people can verify my words by going back to that thread. I said that the perspectives of the oppressed deserve consideration by default. It doesn’t mean that all oppressed individuals are right about every single thing, or that people who benefit from the oppression can’t ever be right about anything no matter what. It just means that oppressed people have voices that are often not listened to, and therefore should be given consideration when it comes to their discourses about the oppression they face. It’s a lot like how men should listen to what women say about their experiences under patriarchy not because all women understand patriarchy correctly and are inherently feminist, but because they have knowledge gained from experiences of sexist oppression that men will never have. The perspective of the oppressed, while imperfect, matters and doesn’t deserve to be dismissed automatically, as I have seen here many times in the past. And I’m not just referring to how people treated me – I’m also referring to all of the other underprivileged people who had their opinions ignored and talked over without any consideration.
Lastly, I have already clarified more than several times what my position on the “cotton ceiling” argument was, and that position was that I did not believe that anyone should be pressured in any way to have sex with someone they don’t want to have sex with, no matter what the reason is. I wish the people who are upset at me for saying that would take at least a few moments to let that sink in and not continuously accuse me of supporting a position that I never held.