Reformers are far more common than Feminists…[and] the passion to decide to look after your fellow-men, and especially women, to do good to them in your way is far more common than the desire to put into everyone’s hand the power to look after themselves. – Lady Margaret Rhondda
For every social movement there is a watershed moment, a point at which the struggle ceases to be unceasingly uphill and begins to develop momentum. Gay rights had its moment in Lawrence vs. Texas, and marijuana decriminalization seems to have reached its this past November with the success of the initiatives in Washington and Colorado. And though it’s obvious that we have not yet reached that point in sex worker rights (and probably won’t until the collapse of “sex trafficking” hysteria), I do believe we’re beginning to see a few signs that the terrain is starting to level out, and that the crest is no longer at some impossible height above us.
The first of those signs started to appear more than two years ago, with the Himel decision in Canada and a few public statements supporting decriminalization from the odd journalist, cop, feminist or politician. By last summer, the shift in the wind was discernible:
…decriminalization has slowly become the default position among health officials, even in countries with full or partial criminalization regimes. This trend culminated…in a UNAIDS commission of experts in health and health law recommending absolute decriminalization of sex work and the sex industry everywhere, thus repudiating criminalization, legalization, the Swedish model, the Nevada model and all other such schemes at one stroke. Shortly after the release of that report came the International AIDS Conference, whose leaders were clearly embarrassed and apologetic for the United states’ high-handed and asinine refusal to allow sex worker delegates into the country to attend the gathering; the executive director of UNAIDS said it was “outrageous…[that] when we have everything to beat this epidemic, we still have to fight prejudice, stigma, discrimination, exclusion, criminalization.” An American politician, Representative Barbara Lee of California, actually fought to have sex workers allowed at the conference, and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said, “If we’re going to beat AIDS, we can’t afford to avoid sensitive conversations, and we can’t fail to reach the people who are at the highest risk”…
Since that time, the trend has only accelerated, and Melissa Gira Grant’s “The War On Sex Workers” (published in the February issue of Reason) seems to have stirred things up in a particular group we might call “whitebread feminists”, women who identify as “feminist” because they think they’re supposed to, but make no attempt to actually form coherent positions on anything. They aren’t rabid neofeminists who equate all heterosexuality with rape, nor “sex-positive” feminists who consider themselves sex workers’ allies, nor members of any one of the various feminist cliques; basically, they’re just the feminist equivalent of rank-and-file members of a political party who happily and obediently espouse all of their group’s positions, no matter how absurd and mutually contradictory, because the group identification matters far more to them than any kind of philosophical consistency. These women are exemplified by websites like Jezebel and Feministe, whose editorial views are roughly as coherent and rational as Femen’s agenda and whose writers are fond of words like “problematic” (which basically means “forcing me to think about things I’d rather not think about”).
Anyhow, Melissa’s essay was obviously “problematic” for a number of feminists; though I doubt many of them would have any more interest in a magazine named Reason than a staunch atheist would have in one called Faith, sex worker activists and allies tweeted, reblogged, linked and otherwise spread it so widely about that it eventually found its way inside the bubble. The first sign it had done so was an article from young neofeminist Meghan Murphy, whose article “There is No Feminist War on Sex Workers” would have been more accurately entitled, “Blah Blah Blah I’M NOT LISTENING! Lalalalala HmmmHmmmHmm…” It attacks Melissa, Laura Agustín and others (without offering any evidence other than “they’re wrong”), refers to whores by the agency-denying label “prostituted women”, cheerleads for the Swedish model (bizarrely characterizing its one-sided criminalization as “true equality”), and then denies that there is a war on sex workers. No, seriously, I’m not making this up; go see for yourself, then take a look at “Proof of Feminist Women’s Violence Against Prostitutes” on the cleverly-named blog This Old Whore House, which delivers exactly what its title promises.
The day after Murphy’s article appeared, two sex-positive feminists wrote a column for Feministe calling attention to Melissa’s article and presenting the case that “Anti-sex-trafficking ‘feminism’ is anti-woman…To be a feminist, one should actually care about the lives of women.” Those who remember my experience on Feministe will be wholly unsurprised when I say that the comment thread turned into a typical feminist screaming match, including an appearance by the aforementioned Meghan Murphy after the very first reply linked her article. And just as Jill came along behind my article to label it “unacceptable”, she did the same thing here with a piece of her own entitled “Supporting Sex Workers’ Rights, Opposing the Buying of Sex” in which she declares that feminists can “support” all of our rights except the (obviously unimportant) right to earn a living at our chosen profession (which we didn’t really choose). Oh, and think of the children!!!! Its comment thread was, as I’m sure you can guess, much of a muchness with the other.
If it had ended there I wouldn’t be writing this post, because I saw absolutely no growth or change or movement in any of it: the bigots were bigoted, and the sex-positives were defensive, and the fence-sitters continued to ride their unicycles and juggle nonsense. But then I saw this article from Anna North (formerly of Jezebel) entitled “What Feminism Can Learn from Sex Workers”, in which she stated that “ultimately, non-sex workers shouldn’t make assumptions about what sex workers want, or decide what they need.” If a woman who has gone on record as believing in both “social construction of gender” and the gypsy whores myth can understand that, maybe there’s hope for whitebread feminists yet. And since they are the vast majority of women who self-identify as “feminist”, they might well prove the group that pushes us over the top.
I really wish I could be as hopeful about this as you, Maggie. As I think we both know, modern feminism is so fractured that any kind of consensus is difficult, and when it comes to a subject in which so many mainstream whitebread feminists feel threatened – the easy availability of sex-for-fee – I think we can expect them to continue to eschew ideology for their blatant self-interest. Their rank-and-file are already in crisis as their life-plans expire with their failure to find a decent mate – if the few decent Beta hubbies left out there in their age bracket have access to high-quality poon at affordable prices, then these women face a long lonely life of dreary corporate feminism. They are already getting nuked in the sexual marketplace by younger women with more realistic ideas about dating, mating, and reproduction, and they are facing even more determined competition in the professional workplace. Their willingness to push for liberalized sex laws is matched only by their willingness to push for universal Selective Service registration.
Feminism is an ideology, but feminists cater their ideology to support their interests. Legalizing or even decriminalizing prostitution in any way runs counter to the interests of most feminists, even if it is a perfectly reasonable — if not vital — element of the rational ideology of feminism. They will therefore rationalize their opposition to sexual competition (where they are already taking a pounding, and not in a good way) by any means possible: exploitation, sex trafficking, porn, “the children”, etc. The facts of the issue don’t matter — it’s an issue of power and control, and feminists see legalization of prostitution as a loss of control of their collective vagina and their power over their AFC Beta husbands.
But keep at it — we’re pulling for you!
And you are an adept writer by the way. I don’t say that lightly.
Ian
I used to be with you on the thought that this battle could take forever however … I’m heartened by the comments underneath this article.
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20130311/HURBLOG/130319980
15 guys busted in Houma, LA in a prostitution sting. The “bait” was an actual … formerly “reliable” … escort who’s been working the area for years. These were guys who did their homework, found a reputable provider operating in an upscale “incall” – some of ’em were her repeat customers – and they walked into a shitstorm with law enforcement.
But look at the comments – almost all of them are from angry people wondering why the police are wasting their time on this shit. Houma, especially – has more pressing issues than a touring hooker and her Johns.
So it gives me hope to see that at least some people can see through the BS here.
They pulled this exact same kind of sting in Tampa, but the whole thing ended up collapsing. One of the girl’s involved was someone I had seen before, I think she ended up moving to California after it was all over. I forget exactly what went wrong (the whole thing was called “Operation Flea Collar,” because it focused on the Big Doggie review board) but I think it didn’t go the way Law Enforcement had wanted.
It’s the same reason the feminists and their buddy Senator Brownback pushed through an anti-“Mail Order Bride” Law. Call it sexual protectionism.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg96804/html/CHRG-108shrg96804.htm.
Of course. American women are among the least desirable women for long term relationships including but not limited to marriage on average than other nationalities women. They don’t want the competition. The only problem is the USA is exporting neo-feminism and is making other countries’ women worse on average too. the same thing happens when other countries’ women immigrate here and see how tyrannical and rapacious American women are allowed to be because the system allows and often encourages this and quite often decide to be this way themselves. Eddie Murphy saw this and did a stand up comedy routine in his movie “Raw” over 20 years ago. Whether it’s this subject or something else, remember this: most people who have options tend to take them until it hurts themselves and have a tendency not to care how much they are hurting others even if it is for no good reason plus they will justify their actions through any means possible.
Ian
This is elegantly stated. Truth be told, it’s more elegantly stated and perhaps more thorough to what I’ve been saying at this website and others for a while now, Last time I looked at the statistics this is what it said: 4% of men and 5% of women aged 40-44 never married while 17% of men and 12% of women aged 40-44 never married in 2010. Neo-feminism(trying to know, understand and use this word the way Maggie McNeill would) has simply made a larger percentage of the female population unbearable to marry because of their messed up personalities and to a lesser extent their neo-feminist worldview. Neo-feminism has probably done more to mess up their personalities than anything else. In addition the system has made it more difficult for individual men to be providers and protectors of women which probably the more important reason than my previous sentence reason as to why the percentage of unmarried males has more than tripled and for women more than doubled over the course of 40 years from 1970 to 2010. Pornography especially internet pornography has already acted as a substitute for having sex with women especially disagreeable women, and it makes it easier for men to avoid interacting with women especially disagreeable women. Pornography doesn’t on average make men more aggressive or criminally inclined to harm women because on average it does the opposite. Pornography does makes men more likely to ignore real women though. Can you imagine what decriminalized sensibly and lightly legalized prostitution especially if it is high quality poon at affordable prices will do? My prediction is watch the marriage rate and the desire of men to marry fall much further. Neo-feminism only survives because it gets women to play by 2013 rules while the men are indoctrinated to play by 1953 rules and possibly suffer real harsh consequences if they don’t. Therefore, the neo-feminists don’t want men and to a lesser extent women to have options. Prostitutes are the proverbial strike breakers to what Neo-feminists and I dare say most American women plus their white knight mangina male supporters want. I personally try to play by the 2013 rules as much as possible and deeply resent having to play because of legal and financial reasons by the 1953 rules which do not benefit me and enslave me as a man and do this to all men as well. Again once men are freed, neo-feminism will probably die and decriminalized prostitution is a key component but not the only component to killing off neo-feminism.
I’m really excited about where things are going here in Canada; for the first time we may to have a short period of where a slim majority of the public favor decriminalization and existing prohibitions are ruled unconstitutional. If ever there will be a time to codify and make permanent sex worker rights here, it will be then. Otherwise, my concern is that today’s terrible laws will be replaced with a set of similarly terrible laws which are simply more consistent with the Charter.
Fortunately what has tended to happen over the last few decades when the Supreme Court strikes down a law, especially on a politically sensitive topic like abortion or same-sex marriage, is that the government never gets around to re-writing the legislation. There’s a good chance to the same lack of clear political advantage will prevent new prostitution laws coming in to replace to current ones.
I’m sorry to go kind of off topic here, but you continuously show disdain for the concept of “socially constructed gender” and it bothers me a lot.
I’m not going to argue that there are no “natural” differences between genders, because that is wrong, but I will point out that for decades the scientific community has accepted that “nature vs nurture” is not about one or the other, but what behaviors are and are not inborn.
Social constructed gender is similar. There are no studies that are specifically aimed at distinguishing what gender specific behaviors are inborn “nature” or learned “nurture”. No one can even decide what a “gender specific” behavior is!
It is a disservice to understanding humanity to dismiss the discussion about what is and is not “socially constructed” behavior.
Now, I’m not denying that most neo-feminist dogma on the subject is asinine, but that doesn’t invalidate the concept. When the idea of “nature vs nurture” first entered discussion, there was all kind of ignorant ranting on both sides of the discussion, however, the study of nature vs nurture is important, and the aspect of that science that relates to gender identity and behavior is also important.
In my experience, women are deeply effected by socially reinforced behavioral norms. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a girl try to lift something heavy that they are perfectly capable of lifting, but if someone is watching, the will immediately stop trying and act weaker than they are because that is more socially acceptable. I also am shocked at how, when I don’t act weaker than I am, most people cart blanche declare “wow, your way stronger than I expected!”
This is just one example, but there are a lot of behaviors like this. Another example is emotional displays. Women are encouraged to be emotional, so they act more emotional, whereas men are encouraged to be less emotional, so they act that way. This is not an inborn behavior, women are not ranging hormonal crazies and men are not apathetic robot people (or apes depending on the convention), and yet those are the gender roles they are expected to fill, the socially constructed gender roles.
This even relates back to prostitution and female sex drive. “Girls don’t want sex” is a social pressure, and when women go against that pressure, they are immediately stigmatized as a whore! Its idiotic, and its purely socially constructed.
All I’m saying is that it is poor form to dismiss an idea just because someone who doesn’t understand it is using it badly.
Social roles and gender are not REMOTELY the same thing. Social roles are socially constructed; gender is not. Neofeminists deny that, and whitebread feminists and lap-dogs try to blur the line between the two. But it’s quite simple for those whose minds aren’t addled by feminism: gender is biological, and roles are social.
In what way is gender biological?
In every way. Sex is determined by chromosomes, and gender appears to be determined by brain structures which are not yet fully understood, but are generally congruent with biological sex. In transgender people, the neurological structures are out of synch with the biological sex, thus leading to identification with the opposite sex. That’s one of the primary reasons radical feminists hate transgenders; they are living proof that children aren’t programmed into gendered behavior by “social construction”.
Hold on there, no one knows what causes the differences- it could be genetic, yeah, but it could also be developmental, which is a combination of physical and social pressures.
Except that most transgenders have siblings who fit comfortably into their biological sexes despite being raised in the same household.
Household is not the only contributing factor in social development. There are identical twins who have different gender identities and sexual preferences!
Oh, sorry, I forgot to put in that you have falsely distinguished between biology and neurology. Neurological structure is biological.
Sex and gender are still considered the same thing, and the fact that you can have organs of one gender and the brain of another points to a much more complicated process to gender identity than just what genetic code you start out with.
In the same way you cannot rule out the effects social roles can have on personality, you cannot rule out the effects socially constructed gender roles can have on gender identity.
It is not so black and white as I think you want it to be.
And not nearly as grey as you want it to be.
Neurological abnormalities don’t change someone’s gender. However they may be a factor in an individuals sexual preferences and/or identification with the contrary gender. I’m not a girl because I was raised to be so, I’m a girl because I was born one.
How could you possibly know that?
With the massive level of diversity just between trans people in the same culture, how was this knowledge obtained? It couldn’t have been. In order for it to even be possible we would need a dichotomy where there is only man and woman.
We know that isn’t the case. Even here in the West we have genderqueer people who don’t identify as men or women.
Good grief, you act as though you’ve never read on this subject! Here’s the very first thing I pulled up with a Google search.
I suggest you free yourself of political “theories” and read up on the actual methodologically-sound science if you want to understand this topic.
I’m not continuing this. I really don’t care for another argument with someone who’s going to dismiss anyone who doesn’t fit into “male” or “female” boxes. I left radfem spaces for that very reason.
Congrats on your speaking engagement.
Whoa there, kiddo, I don’t “dismiss” anybody. There are indeed people who don’t fit into those boxes, but that doesn’t mean the boxes don’t exist; you might as well argue that the existences of mules disproves the existence of horses and asses.
Don’t call me kiddo.
So what? I’m not saying there are’t men and women and I’m not saying biology doesn’t push us towards our respective genders. I’m saying you are grossly overstating your case.
No, I’m not, and you’re being incredibly defensive. Just the fact that you react negatively to the sort of joking nickname I use all the time on this blog demonstrates that amply.
Umm… I’m wondering how you could say that. See, that part where he made a point and then you said it sounded like he’d never read anything? That lands as dismissal, whether he’s got a point or not…
… and he does. That theory can fit some or even many transgender folk – it can be a good theory, but it does not cover all cases.
If I recall correctly, during the third month of gestation, the developing foetus has it’s gonadal endocrine system activated via the sex chromosomes; an XX foetus remains female, an XY foetus begins a physical transformation moderated by the testosterone released from the gonadal tissues.
However, it is the *level* of testosterone that acts as a governor of the transformation procress: various tissues respond and reshape themselves to a degree determined by the T level. If, for any reason, this level is low or the response is muted (due to genetic T immunity, say) then the foetus can have mixed (or even strongly opposite gender) in-utero gender characteristics, which include brain structure (esp the hemispherical crosslinks, which are “pruned” by high T levels to a greater degree) genitals, skeleto-musculature, distribution of bodyfat cells, and internal organ disposition in the lower abdomen.
In effect, gender is not a two position switch, it’s a sliding scale based on T levels, with the Ultrafeminine of genetic T immunity at zero, normal femininity up just a bit, masculinised femeninity further up, True genetic hermaphroditism at halfway, “feminised” males further up, Average guys near the upper end, and the stereotypical Alpha male types at the top.
This presents a gender spectrum, in the analog greyscale sense.
… in the same way everything a person is and does is biological. Just like how personality is biological. And your emotions. And your face.
For a start, females are born with a vagina and men with a penis and testicles. Those born with both sexual organs are medically known as intersex. Transgender is a social construct. The clinical procedure of genital realignment amounts to nothing more than genital mutilation and cosmetic surgery.
It’s something that helps many transmen and women overcome dysphoria. Why would you describe it as genital mutilation?
By dysphoria do you mean mild, moderate or severe depressive episode as defined by ICD-10? There is no evidence that genital realignment surgery helps overcome that, and I can it genital mutilation because that is exactly what it is, which is why most surgeons will not perform it. Transvestites who retain their male genitalia are statistically less likely to develop recurrent depressive disorder.
I have no problem with with anyone mutilating their genitals if they are paying for the privilege but I won’t pretend that it has any medical benefit because it doesn’t.
“Transvestites who retain their male genitalia are statistically less likely to develop recurrent depressive disorder.” — do you have a source for that, and how good is the research?
I find, often, that good research is not done in these fields; the researchers generally manage to find whatever confirms their own biases, and nothing more, with sample sizes and statistical methods too poor to really produce solid data (but great to pull out of it whatever the researcher wishes).
I’d also say that that statement is likely tautologically true only; a transvestite is defined as someone who enjoys dressing as and appearing like someone of the opposite gender, but who does not desire to actually become that gender for real.
Thus, I’d say that transvestites are often quite happy about what they are and do, because, absent people trying to make them feel guilty about their desires, they’re doing what they want!
Transsexuals, on the other hand, are defined as those who are unhappy with their gender and are working toward becoming the other gender as far as it is possible for them. Which isn’t completely, of course, so understandably transsexuals have more psychological trouble than others! Being unhappy and stressed about one’s life and existence and body is a great way to develop depression, it seems to me.
These are not two populations that are identical except for the happenstance that one set had genital surgery and the other set didn’t. They are disjoint, with different desires and issues. They just LOOK similar.
My evidence is taken from cross examination of various NHS doctors who under oath had to acknowledge that gender dysphoria is not a mental illness or physical condition. So put simply: it’s not a genuine medical condition in the sense that it is supported by shred of science. Secondly it was conceded that although more patients claimed to be satisfied than dissatisfied with the results shortly after genital mutilation, that after the drug therapy and counselling ended that a higher percentage developed recurrent depressive disorder than those transvestites, who failed to go through with surgery over the long term, and in fact there were cases of gender realignment reversal. Similar results have been found in Brazil where transvestites who retain their male gender but have boob jobs are more socially accepted.
The UK legislation in 2004 giving transgenders legal recognition was based on political correctness not good science, the result has been that health authorities are statutorily required to provide surgery that lots of doctors believe to be against the patients interest.
The fact and it is a fact, that nobody can be proved to suffer from gender dysphoria or proved to be cured from it, Invalidates any research that would suggest that it has any medical benefit. I’m aware of no research that suggests that it is effective in preventing the development of mental illness, in fact every published document on the “condition” from the NHS denies it is a mental illness. Scientifically this condition has no more validity than possession by evil spirits.
I have no problem with elective cosmetic surgery as long as it’s dressed up in pseudo-scientific bullshit, and if it involves genital mutilation it as defined as such, because it’s perverse for western countries to criticise African countries for FGM and then to offer FGM and MGM as treatment for a non-provable condition.
Wow. You’re an idiot.
I regret ever engaging you, reading this blog and linking back here.
That’s a rather strong reaction to disagreeing with another reader, don’t you think? I daresay it would be a rare blogger who endorsed the content of every single comment made by third parties on her blog.
I have to disagree with you; everything I’ve read on this phenomenon has convinced me of almost exactly the opposite. There is considerable evidence that transsexuality is a genuine neurological condition, the wrong “sex image chip” as it were; the brains of transsexuals are demonstrably different, and that’s been known since the mid-’90s. I have no doubt that transvestites who underwent SRS might indeed have problems because they’re still men despite their cross-dressing, but genuine transsexuals are generally much happier after surgery.
I’ve read lots of research that supports that view too but it’s all fundamentally flawed for the reason I gave. Gender dysphoria is that it is neither mental illness nor physical condition. So therefore it evades the rigors of scientific research that a mental illness or physical condition is subject to. In fact, as a condition it is impossible to scientifically verify.
If gender dysphoria was clearly a neurological condition, as you suggest, it could be easily identified as such. So why isn’t it? I’m unaware of any country where CAT scans are used in the diagnosis gender dysphoria.
I’m not saying that a number of people who have chosen to undergo gender realignment surgery do not have neurological abnormalities that might have been a factor in why they identify with the other gender but there is no transsexual brain.
There are lots of reasons why people might identify with the other gender, including but not limited to: low testosterone, micropenis or otherwise small penis, and sexual or emotional abuse but it doesn’t mean they suffer from a medical illness or condition that should be treated with hormone therapy or genital mutilation. Some cosmetic surgeries like boob jobs in a man are easily reversible, but genital realignment is genital mutilation.
You talk about the “genuine transsexual” the problem with that is it’s a self supporting statement. Essentially you’re saying if it doesn’t work they weren’t genuine transsexuals in the first place, which of course by implication means that assessment panel got it wrong. So they were misdiagnosed.
In most cases that would amount to emasculating a homosexual man. As a lawyer I was consulted by a man in that situation. I had to explain to him that he had no legal redress because the doctors followed the diagnosis processes to the letter. He got what he asked for.
I think you’re also ignore the fact that many gay transvestites who identify as women can live their lives with their penises and not develop mental illness and also have satisfactory sex lives. There are also plenty of examples in history of men voluntarily castrating or emasculating themselves for all manner of reasons. So I don’t discount the fact that some men or even the majority of men who go through the process may be happy with the results.
I’m not against freedom of choice to have these operations. What I’m against is pseudo-science because it’s dangerous and tax-payer footing the bill.
By dysphoria I mean dysphoria.
which is why most surgeons will not perform it.
That’s completely untrue. Surgeons will happily perform circumcisions and other cosmetic treatments on newborns who are porn with ambiguous genitalia.
The issue only really comes in when it’s a transwoman asking for a vagina, or a transperson asking to start hormones.
A transvestite is not a transwoman.
Circumcision is rarely performed on babies in Europe, and usually for religious reasons i.e. Jews and Muslims. Most circumcisions for no religious reasons happen later in life if the foreskin fails to retract or cosmetic reasons. Genital realignment surgery is rarely performed on intersex babies.
In Europe, perhaps; in the United States, infant circumcision is routine and I believe genital correction for intersexed babies is also common (relative to the occurrence of such babies, which are rare, that is).
I’m well aware that clinically unnecessary genital cosmetic surgery is performed on male and female newborn babies at the request of parents. However I seriously doubt that genital corrective surgery, which BTW is different from genital realignment surgery, is performed on intersex babies because it would be preemptive and once done cannot easily be reversed. However, the point still stands that most surgeons will not perform genital realignment surgery on men or women on the basis that they suffer from GID because it has been debunked as a mental illness or disorder, even in the US.
Again, I’m not against men or women freely choosing to have their genital mutilated, removed or altered as long as they have no mental health problems and understand that the procedure is needless, elective, and may ruin their life. If under those circumstances they want to go ahead, I think it’s personal choice.
I was referring not to the biology of x vs y chromosome, but to gender behavior. Gender related behavior is not “just” biological any more (or less) than personality is biological.
Humans are extremely trainable; it takes 25 years before our brains finish developing! Emotional habits can have an effect on biology and brain chemistry, and even on which genes are and are not expressed.
I intentionally did not use the word “biology”. It is nonsense to claim some types of behavior are biological and some are not- your whole self, mind and body, is biological. The argument is about what is inborn and unchangeable (as in, will happen no matter what you feel/eat/do), and what is learned/taught by the environment, including the social environment.
Also, I specifically did not use the term “social role” because that is an environment, not a behavior. A social role can be anything, not just a gender related one, and it is a pressure, not the resulting behavior of that pressure.
A “gender role” is the behavioral identity that is taught to an individual. How that lesson effects the behavior of the individual receiving the lesson is what “socially constructed gender” is meant to discuss.
As gender related behavior is more complicated that “the ones with the sticky organ ejects stuff into the ones who have the baby growing organs”, gender biology is obviously more complicated than what organs an individual happens to have.
Even in identical twin, who have the same DNA, personality (which includes gender identity) can vary depending on the environment in which they are raised. Their brains can even grow to be completely different looking!
Basically, the discussion is not just about what gender an individual is, but how much social pressures effect (cause or not cause) the behavior and biological differences between individuals of different genders.
Except that none of that is what neofeminists mean when they talk about “social construction of gender”. You apparently haven’t read much of their garbage on the subject; they claim that ALL sex-related behavior, including that which no biologist or competent psychologist would deny results from innate brain architecture and/or sex hormones, is “socially constructed”. Some of them even deny all sexual dimorphism outside of genital structure, and a few of them even deny that as well, pretending that a whole range of in-between genitalia occurs commonly in humans but is forced into the penis-vagina duality. These people are bat-shit crazy; they don’t care about anything even remotely resembling scientific fact.
Nnn, I sense that the argument has devolved somewhat. Sorry. :/
I agree that claiming that “sexual dimorphism is a myth created by the patriarchy to oppresses us poor oppressed females” is ludicrous.
However, dismissing the possibility that there are some gender specific behaviors that are influenced by social expectations is not okay, either. If a person is told from birth that they are physically weaker than someone else, no matter what they do, in most cases they will become even weaker as a result. The same thing applies to intelligence, emotional stability- any skill, or learned behavior, really. Further, those skills and behaviors do effect biology, hence why identical twins can have very different personalities, bodies, and brain construction. If one twin is gay, that does not mean the other one will be. If one twin is weak and frail, that does not mean the other one will be, and if one identifies as a woman, that does not mean the other one will.
Pointing out that when the process is complete (or even still ongoing) girls are biologically weaker than boys is dangerous because there is no way to determine how much of that weakness is related to a learned behavior and how much is related to uncontrollable physiological differences. That does not make it wrong to say that girls are weaker than boys, because they mostly are, but it doesn’t mean that there is no value in determining why.
The really problem I have with dismissing the possibility that gender is influenced by social gender roles is that you could potentially have a situation where someone is forced to grow to fit a role that they do not want to be in. A person should not be limited by the expectations of others.
I think that getting hung up over the biological differences present is sexually dimorphic creatures is abusive. The differences, for the most part, are academic in that the rarely actually limit what a person can and cannot do, given sufficient time and motivation.
In any case, I think that claiming that “socially constructed gender is a ludicrous idea” is just as wrong as claiming “intelligence has nothing to do with nurture”
This is not Utopia. People will ALWAYS be forced by misguided parents and/or an authoritarian society into roles (sex or otherwise) that don’t fit. And the “social constructionists” are just as guilty as those who deny the existence of transgender individuals.
The solution isn’t denying scientific evidence; it’s removing the ability of governments to force individuals to do anything other than refrain from hurting other individuals. Parents and social pressure will still exist, but at least they won’t be able to enforce their diktats with threats and brute force.
What scientific evidence did I deny? All I said was I thought the way you seem to dismiss the idea that gender could be influenced by society was wrong.
It is also wrong to say that the philosophy of “the social construction of gender” has been “discredited”. The radical, nonsensical claims of crazy people have been discredited, yeah, but not the idea that socially determined gender roles have an impact on gender identity.
The horrible things you discuss in your older post is not an argument against the theory of socially constructed gender, but an argument against forcing people to conform to a gender decided upon by other people! To say that gender is influenced by society is not to say that gender does not exist! And it doesn’t mean you can force someone to ignore those social pressures, either.
There are no cultures where children are not distinguished sexually from the get go, and treated differently as a result. Identifying a potential social factor in the development of gender identity is not opening the door for tyranny any more or less than expecting someone to conform to a predetermined social gender identity causes tyranny. Tyranny is tyranny, and it does not need an excuse.
I generally agree with all of your political ideals, although I generally identify as party apathetic, if I were to pick a party it would probably be libertarian. I’m not saying the government should force everyone to treat children asexually, just that people should be aware that social norms seriously impact gender identity and behavior. I don’t think it is right to deny that possibility just because crazy people said crazy things, and some stupid people believed them and did awful things.
I’m getting the feeling that both of you actually agree with each other more than you seem to think, and that the problem is largely in communication and terminology.
I’ve often considered it a major problem that feminism redefines so many common terms to mean something quite different than what non-feminists mean by the term. This leads to endless misunderstandings between feminists and non-feminists, even when they largely agree!
Behavioral norms can still be based on biology. The examples of social “limitations” you list are on the whole advantageous behaviors for females carrying those precious eggs. Which is why feminism looks more like enabling than liberation. Does it encourage girls to work road construction? Nope, it demands they be given seats on corporate boards. Should girls study formal logic? Nope, emotion should be recognized as the source of absolute truth. Should girls want sex? Nope, that’s rape.
That has nothing to do with me and my position. “Feminism” is not a cult (or at least its not supposed to be), its the idea that female deserve equal opportunity. Just because the loud ones are the crazy ones does not invalidate the idea that inequalities must be discussed.
The problem with modern feminism is that its no longer about demanding that people accept that girls are equal, its about discussing the ways that they are still not, despite the acceptance that they should be. Its the same problem racism faces- yeah, everyone agrees that racism is wrong and stupid (at least on the surface), but we’ve only had a few decades to try and change all the social habits and norms that were the result of racism.
And, last time I checked, being encouraged to be a hysterical weakling with no sex drive is not a good thing.
Nnn, sorry, that was directed at Wilson
But feminism was never about equality. As a ideology formed in the 60s – and not before – feminism was not about female equality but a rejection of the notion that female equality could be achieved in a patriarchal society. Early feminist were lesbian separatists, but when feminism came to terms with the fact that girls weren’t all that keen in living in pussy colonies it redefined itself as a women’s right movement, which is at odds with original feminist theory. Feminism still hasn’t quite comes to terms with the the fact that we (girls) might actually enjoy sucking cock and being fucked doggy style. Feminists still peddle the oppressed, delusional and financially dependent on a man myths but they now target “trafficked” girls.
I think that’s assigning to early feminism a singularity of purpose I don’t think was actually there.
Well nothing I’ve said is an unreasonable assessment of Dworkin, Greer, Firestone, Mitchell, Rowbotham, Koedt, Hite, Millett,Steinem and MacKinnon works. The fact that latter feminists felt the need to describe themselves as sex positive is a good indication that early feminists were anti sex with men and most of them were misappropriating Marxist theory and applying to gender, hence the ludicrous “sex war”.
To Ms. Jill from Feministe:
If there is one thing you need to get through your skull, it’s this:
Love is free, but sex is not.
That was true millions of years ago when we lived in caves, it’s true now, and it will be true in the feminist utopia. If you don’t believe me, just think back to all the sexual relationships you’ve had in your life (both hetero and homo), and you will realize that this is true. Sex is a transaction, no matter how you slice it.
That’s a pretty basic concept and it’s amazing that it seems most people don’t understand it.
They need to all state in a public form that they support decrim across the board and be held to that.
From Jill’s article:
And poverty shouldn’t exist. And why do people get sick? And I should be 6’2″ with abs of steel. And I want a pony. Jill doesn’t seem to grasp that this is the way the world is and always has been.
This says a lot about her point of view.
Wow. What a non-sequitur. If an exchange is mutual and voluntary, it is moral for both sides.
It’s a perfect demonstration of the intellectual bankruptcy of what passes for “feminism” nowadays. Mary Wollstonecraft would be utterly disgusted.
Reblogged this on Elrond Middle England and commented:
I wish I was so positive as you. Maybe it’s because all around England there are these new criminalise the client laws. Yet to see what happens, the ROI being the first to propose a law.
The population, as opposed to the law makers and activists don’t generally care much about sexwork or not. They get concerned if it’s in their street or next door. They don’t really care either way when it occurs behind closed doors. There is always the assumption that business travellers away from home will dally. As one responder said, people question why the police waste so much money on sting operations.
In the UK breaking up a brothel can earn them money from POCA, but I expect it does not cover the legal costs.
I hope this is the watershed. It was a long time between Rosa Parks and Barack Obama, or between Stonewall and the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Let’s hope this watershed is followed up on more quickly.