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.”)
My only objection to the genetics argument is when it’s used specifically as a club against the legitimacy of transsexuality as a medical diagnosis, I’m not talking about discussions of either standard reproductive biology or Intersex conditions. Those are outside my bailiwick, and I probably couldn’t describe the difference between AIS and Klinefelter’s without looking it up.
Also, my objection was not prescriptive, just because I’m not interested in discussing it doesn’t mean that I object to others discussing it. But I do believe that the “trans women are really men because of XY chromosomes” argument is total shit, and about as scientifically relevant as Phlogiston.
Also, I never said that biological sex “doesn’t exist.” I said that it’s socially constructed – like every other scientific concept ever created. Just because it’s used under scientific consensus doesn’t mean that it isn’t a product of patriarchal scientific history. Sex is a social construct just as race is. And the understanding sex as a social construct isn’t just beneficial to trans people. It’s also beneficial to cis women, because the deconstruction of sex destroys all possible arguments for the idea that gender is immutable and patriarchy is inevitable. It liberates all women from the burden of operating within a discursive framework in which they must accept that there are naturally “male” and naturally “female” bodies no matter what.
Not all cis and trans women accept these classifications as inherent to the human body, and their rejection of those classifications isn’t misguided or ignorant. Just because our current, dominant understanding of biology is based on the biological concepts of race, sex, etc. doesn’t mean that it is the only valid or possible understanding. Just because I’m not perfect at understanding biology doesn’t mean that, as a woman, I don’t have the right to critique a concept that is commonly accepted as the undeniable truth. Scientific discourses have undergone drastic changes ever since they became a thing, and they will continue to change as the world changes. If anyone would like some feminist reading material on this matter, I suggest Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling and The Category of Sex by Monique Wittig.
If that was aimed at me, I apologize; of course I didn’t mean that everyone here is transphobic or anything, and not being trans, I don’t think it’s my place to point out what specific things I think are the problem.
“Yeah, because stating a sequence of events and how someone conducted themself during that time is character assassination.”
Nope. Calling someone a “toxic person” is character assassination. And that’s my legal opinion!
Neurobiology / economics major, technically. Although Google helps. Remembering exactly what constitutes pluripotential neureogenesis and inter-related currency import/exports can be a fucking hassle. Hey, how do I define a foreign reserve or a multiple layer fungible product? Biology belongs in the lab, but I can ask you social science questions on this social science blog all day long!
Unless you’d rather I didn’t, because trying to shut you up with little digs at your expertise or personal inclinations would be toxic and mean.
—-
Who are you to dictate the experiences of multiple others? Stating a sequence of events and what that feels like isn’t character assassination, any more than saying everyone on this blog hates transpeople, banned the word TERF or are close to thinking next that trans-folk are rotten meat. Which, in case it’s not clear, you already did.
So if character assassination is toxic and shit, don’t do it. Kirbywarp is right, yet again. If you have a thing to say, say it. If your thing to say is idle nettles, avaunt and go elsewhere.
I mean, if calling someone a toxic person is character assassination, hypothethically asking if next you’re going to go out and buy a high powered sniper rifle to fire off depleted uranium shot at the moon is… either moon assassination, mockery or libel of the worst sort.
If it’s your actual legal opinion that slandering someone by stating their personality is toxic is actual character assassination, I’m not entirely sure your legal counsel is actually true. Also weren’t you leaving? If I say that you seem intent to remain solely to rile up a fraccas, is that character assassination? What if I ask – just hypothetically – if next you’ll roll out a drum section and kick up a fuss?
And if it was aimed at me, I never said the whole space is transphobic either. I said that judging from what was happening on this thread — and I was hardly the only person who used pejorative terms, long before my first comment, to refer to the way trans women’s concerns were addressed in this thread — this website “seems to be turning into” a place where transphobia is condoned. “Cesspool” was admittedly hyperbole, and I withdraw it. And obviously the situation has now been addressed by David, and one hopes that this kind of thread will never happen again. .
“saying everyone on this blog hates transpeople, banned the word TERF or are close to thinking next that trans-folk are rotten meat. Which, in case it’s not clear, you already did.”
Except that I didn’t say a single one of those things. Not one. Any more than Ally appears to have said the things she’s being accused of.
@friday jones
So you can save your breath with everything else you might have to say to me about moon assassination, drums, or anything else. I’m obviously not smart enough to get your point, so it’s wasted on me.
And when I said “final comment,” I meant on this thread, about this subject. Because I was under the impression that the discussion was pretty much over. But as long as you or anyone else continues to address me in the way you have been, I’ll probably have some more to say.
The Blockquote Monster messed with me again. I was the one quoting for truth, not friday jones.
1
“Biology belongs in the lab, but I can ask you social science questions on this social science blog all day long!”
Well I suppose we could be all “freeze peach” and “everything goes,” but I feel like a few “scientific” topics are not suited for polite company. Eugenics would be one, and I’d like to put “trans women have XY chromosomes therefore male” on that pile.
Donna L:
Donna L:
Donna L:
Granted, banning the word TERF is Ally S’ statement. But I guess if we’re at the “I never said that” stage of discourse, then there’s little point in continuing to have a conversation about the topic at hand, chromosones, moon assassinations, drums, trans issues, legal stuff or anything.
I shall see myself out the door, presently. Have a lovely evening otherwise, and let’s indeed hope this kind of thread never happens again.
You suggested that we were a clique of TERFS on our way to committing extreme forms of hateful transphobia with your specious guilt by false association argument. You’ve been intellectual dishonest quite a bit here.
Oh, and since people are referencing it and it’s directly addressed to me.
Thank you for the offer, but you did, literally, say that. Since, again, apparently sourcing our words and referencing the actual statements of people in this room (as multiple posters have politely asked people to do) is impossible, I am, indeed, bowing out with that last qoutation.
Have a fantastic day.
I’m going to back Ally on this, I’m not going to dig through the old thread but I distinctly remember her making this very point after things got heated. IIRC, she felt how trans women are perceived in terms of sexuality is a valid topic for discussion (and it is) but she could not have distanced herself further from what I consider the toxic elements of this debate without moving to the moon.
If you read what I said carefully, I did not say or imply that “everyone” was making transphobic comments, by any means. I never thought that more than a handful of people — including a moderator — were making this thread, and this website, difficult for trans women. I said it “seemed to be turning into” a place “where transphobic comments go unaddressed by the moderators or the blog owner.” (Which is no longer true of the latter, and the particular moderator is not moderating any more for the time being.) I’ve already withdrawn the cesspool accusation!
In fact, since what I said at Feministe seems relevant to some people, I pointed out to Ally there that there were, in fact, people here standing up against transphobia and refuting the claim that TERF is a slur. My primary concern was that until David addressed the situation — and he explained the reason for the delay — nobody in a position of authority seemed to be doing so.
I understand that some people here are naturally defensive when they see themselves as unjustly accused by an outsider, but don’t try to pretend that the problem with this thread was what I said, as opposed to the atmosphere created by several people, including a moderator, before I ever said a word.
I was responding to Alex, who claimed that I thought that all oppressed people are right about “all issues”. I replied by saying that I only thought that oppressed people when talking about their experiences of oppression deserve to be given consideration due to their unique base of experiential knowledge. What I mean by basic consideration isn’t automatic agreement with even the oppressed person who is wrong but rather an approach that doesn’t involve talking over them. She made it sound like I think that every single thing an oppressed person says should be agreed with uncritically. If I have misinterpreted her, I apologize, but otherwise I don’t see anything wrong with what I said.
As for the original comment that you quoted, maybe my word choice wasn’t perfect but I thought I made my point clear enough for most people to understand. After all, this is what I had said in that thread prior to that quote:
The above quote made my position sufficiently clear.
2
Note to people who haven’t ever commented here before but who are now coming to comment in this thread: Nope.
Thank you for that, David.
3
(Just to clarify, that’s a reference to several people whose first-time comments I haven’t let through as well as to one who is pestering me about being banned.)
My previous comment was directed at Fibinachi, just so y’all know.
Anyway, I’m bowing out of this thread, too. I no longer see any purpose in me talking about the things that aren’t related to my past here, because other people like friday jones and Donna have addressed them nicely already, such as the points about biological sex and the “cotton ceiling”. And I don’t see the point in defending myself in this thread further – at this point I think it’s best that people carefully read the thread I linked to in my previous comment and make their own judgements. With a few exceptions, I made myself very clear in that thread. And if anyone wants to talk with me about any of those things, feel free to email me at aaliyahsyed94 at gmail. I will be happy to talk with you as much as you wish, since I’m pretty talkative.
This is my last comment here – I’m leaving for good this time. I apologize for being inadvertently inflammatory in this thread. To those who asked about my well-being, things have been rocky for me needless to say but overall I’m doing ok. I hope the management of this blog becomes easier and less stressful for you, David.
Goodbye, WHTM. Take care.
Wow. OK.
I always thought “cis” privilege was bullshit, an artificial class created to slander and control women by assigning them the violent tendencies that, historically, men share as a group.
If someone can make women feel responsible for crimes we don’t commit, they can waste our energy and time.
MRAs do it all the time. Need examples? Read this site. According to them, women rape men as much or more so than men — everyone here knows that’s crap and they’re just trying to use shaming tactics to shut down certain conversations.
Since when do women overwhelmingly, physically hurt trans people? Men who are homophobic hurt trans people. Analyzing something, isn’t abusive. Keeping people from doing so is the opposite of liberal.
Biology is an optional belief system? Great. Does that mean if I feel a certain way, I can forgo mammograms — even if breast cancer runs in my family — which it does, and pretend I won’t be a good candidate for getting it? Eh, better safe than sorry, I think.
It’s cool, I’ll show my way out.
Now referring to XY chromosomes as biologically male is comparable to eugenics?
This is fucking wacky.