Today’s guest columnist probably needs no introduction for most of you; under her stage name Belle de Jour she wrote a well-known blog which turned into books and eventually a TV show, Secret Diary of a Call Girl. Dr. Magnanti is a forensic scientist (she did sex work while in graduate school), and now brings her scientific training and analytical mind to bear as a writer on sex work, sex in general and other related issues. So without further ado, I’ll surrender the floor to her.
For those living outside of the UK, it can be tough to comprehend the seeming stranglehold a certain type of second-wave feminism has on the mainstream media there. Issues like, say, feminists objecting to Hooters might raise some local interest in the media if they happened in the States; whereas here they’re as apt to gain national attention. Similarly, campaigns like the “Lose the Lads Mags” and “No More Page 3” efforts gain remarkable amounts of column inches compared to the number of lives these issues actually affect. As a Southern girl who grew up in the very town that was home to the first Hooters, the only truly offensive thing about Hooters in Britain is the absence of the deep fried pickles that the menu promises. But hey, mainstream feminism and I have long since parted ways; I accept that.
The benefit and drawback of working in such a small media bubble is that everyone knows everyone. It’s fair to say that with most British journalists working for all of the national papers at some point or another, and with everyone reading the same papers and websites anyway, you are never really only “preaching to the choir”. But not only are other journalists watching, so is the world. In times past the public could hardly ever enter the conversation in any meaningful way. Social media has of course changed all that. And it’s this fact that seems to have taken the second-wavers by surprise: they have been slow to realise that thanks to Facebook, Twitter, and so on, their previously one-way conversations are no longer one-way.
One of the perennial targets of second-wave feminists has been trans women who, along with sex workers, are frequently accused of not being “real” women, being tools of the patriarchy, and so on. The great strides made in public recognition and social acceptance run up against a brick wall when talking to the average second waver. If it was a matter of a small minority of British feminists, that would be a problem, but not an insurmountable one. When these feminists have a considerable presence in the media, however, the issue of transphobia takes on very different and worrying overtones indeed.
This ongoing issue came to a head last year, when Suzanne Moore (who then wrote for the Mail and the Guardian, a dual role on far ends of the mainstream political spectrum all but inconceivable outside the tiny world of British media) found herself on the receiving end of some pointed criticism about an offhand remark about “Brazilian transsexuals“. Trans people and allies of course spoke up. Called out for her insensitive – not to mention, inaccurate in the context – use of language, Moore doubled down on her stance, controversially tweeting that trans women “cut their dicks off and be more feminist than me,” a remark that many who were on the fence about whether her initial remarks had been purposely transphobic found far, far beyond the pale.
If it had only been Suzanne, or if the story had ended there, perhaps it would be long forgotten by now. But her friend and fellow second-wave feminist Julie Burchill poured oil on the flames of controversy with a column that raised every last hackle on anyone who supported the rights of trans men and women. As I wrote in the Telegraph at the time, it’s a way of thinking that we should be leaving behind in the name of solidarity for all women. This is after all the 21st century.
The backlash against Burchill’s comments was so great, and the condemnation so universal, that many second-wavers have since taken pains to distance themselves from the old ideology that characterised trans women as not “real” women. A recent Soho Skeptics debate about trans, for example, attracted widespread criticism. Participant and entrenched second-waver Julie Bindel, who was on the panel, took to Twitter repeating that she had long since apologised for any offensive remarks made about trans women (see for example her interview with Paris Lees for Meta Magazine) and anyway, can’t they all just move on now?
The question of how far Bindel and others like her have moved on, though, is still up in the air. Recently, I noticed some discussion on the timeline of Sarah Brown, a Liberal Democrat councillor and trans activist living in Cambridge. In 2008, Sarah jokingly suggested taking a leaf from Dan Savage’s playbook. Savage, who is famously outspoken on gay rights issues, once managed handily to nick the name of one of US politics’ biggest homophobes – Rick Santorum – and repurpose the name to mean the mixture of lube, semen and faecal matter that can follow anal sex. Savage’s effort was so successful that Googling the word “Santorum” now gives you his definition rather than the politician’s site. As far as cheeky, media-aware activism goes, Savage hit it out of the park. Sarah therefore suggested appropriating the name of Bindel (who up to that point had no problem associating herself with transphobic remarks in public) to mean the smegma-like discharge that sometimes accompanies a trans woman dilating her vagina post-surgery. Some five years later, Bindel took exception to this, and tweeted about it. Bindel claims to have been victimised by the blog, and also, to have apologised for any past transphobia.
But has she turned over a new leaf, really? An anonymous source contacted me. This source happened to follow what was going on in Bindel and Brown’s public timelines, but also followed Julie Bindel on Facebook, and pointed out that a different conversation was happening there. So while on the one hand Bindel was objecting loudly on Twitter, claiming her transphobic phase was long in the past, Facebook was telling a very different story indeed. First Bindel suggested her Facebook fans make complaints to Cambridge council, in an attempt to have Sarah removed from her job. Considering that the blog in question was written well before Sarah entered politics, it’s unclear how this would be relevant to her current position, but anyway. Still more shocking were the quotes and comments Bindel’s Facebook lamentations attracted.
Karen Ingala Smith, the Chief Executive of nia, a group dedicated to ending violence against women, posted that Sarah Brown was a “vile creature“. Keeping in mind the extremely high rates of violence suffered by trans women, this would seem to be a particularly callous remark. But this pales in comparison to the comments of Julie Burchill – she of the Suzanne Moore controversy, and a very high-profile journalist indeed in Britain: “What a bunch of fucking rotters. I’d like to shove their bad wigs down their stupid throats!”
I don’t mind telling you I choked on my tea when I read that.
What the Facebook exchange goes to show is that if anything has changed in second-wave feminism, Bindel, Burchill, et al have yet to get the memo. (It must have been lost in the post alongside the one reminding people that things you say on Facebook aren’t really all that private.) But then for sex work activists like me, the discovery that the public and private faces of such people are adjusted precisely for their audience comes as no surprise. And still less surprising is the incredibly violent imagery they employ in convincing themselves (and their sadly many followers) that some women deserve the violence that the second wave feminists do absolutely nothing to prevent.
I think the odd culture of Britain’s ‘celebrity lists’ is partly what drives the incredibly offensive nature of British journalism.
There’s a lot of people in Britain who are still living off something that made them moderately famous a long time ago and there is a lot of competition among ‘C and D-List’ celebrities to avoid falling off the public radar. Often they’ve had nothing to say for decades so they’ll just say anything that will give them another 15 mins of fame and 12 months worth of speaking engagements. That’s also why Britain has no trouble finding people ready to make fools of themselves on reality TV programs like ‘I’m a Celebrity – Get Me Out of Here”.
Julie Burchill is a particularly good case in point.
She came to prominence as a precocious teenage music reviewer for New Music Express in the 1970s but by the time she was twenty there was no novelty in it. So she kept herself in the public gaze by courting controversy through outrageous statements.
She started by making increasingly offensive comments about the musicians she’d met and just escalated from there.
Obnoxiousness is her only schtick. Unless there’s an outcry against her every six months or so she will be forgotten, so she makes sure there is one.
She’s by no means an exception. There’s a lot of British celebs who’ve got nothing to offer but controversy.
I think you’ve got it spot on there. Notice for instance in UK trending topics on Twitter this morning, Katie Hopkins is at the top again (failed candidate on the UK version of The Apprentice a few years back), for going on breakfast television and saying awful things about breastfeeding and attachment parenting.
See also the UK controversies over columnists like Samantha Brick, Liz Jones, and so on. There is no shortage of people waiting to grab Burchill’s crown as mouthiest and most offensive.
I notice that at least in the pictures you post, Julie Burchill looks way more “butch” than Sarah Brown. If I had to guess who was who, I’d have picked Burchill as the trans woman. That just shows you why I haven’t declared myself police of the female gender. But maybe that’s what she’s so angry about.
I’ve questions for the likes of Burchill.
Since sex workers aren’t “real” women, and I was a sex worker, but am not now, have I become real? At what point? Was it when I saw my last client? A year after leaving the profession? Ten years?
Or do I never become real?
If Burchill is going to put this silliness out there, then let’s have an explanation.
If I remember correctly, Laura Agustin once heard an anti-SW type say that sex workers had to be out of the business over 7 years to be considered ‘deprogrammed’.
I’ve been out 9. Funny, they still don’t take me seriously.
I think Burchill wouldn’t say you’ve lost your gender but betrayed it, so presumably you won’t be a real woman again until you’ve spent a few years in the re-education camps.
Basically, in order to be accepted by these people you’d have to swallow the party line. And like all former heretics, you’d have to be more Catholic than the Pope, and never, ever step out of line again, even verbally. They still won’t let you sit in the main room with the real women, but they might graciously let you sit in some back room somewhere until they need you to come out and talk about “false consciousness.”
This has possibilities. Was I real until the autumn of 1997, then did I become unreal until 2006? And if I become real again after 7 years out as Brooke mentions above, did I suddenly become real again this past June, just before I went to the Desiree Alliance conference? It’s so complicated!
I know you were a librarian. You could’ve worked at the Library of Babel. This sounds like the basis of a Borges story.
There’s also this delightful transphobic poem by Nick Cohen from 2011 which Julie Bindel liked:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/189471021101042/permalink/189529977761813/
Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/4CQEHxx.png
Odd behaviour from someone who’s supposedly renounced transphobia.
Whoah – I hope that’s not Nick Cohen the journalist is it?!? (can only see the screenshot)
It is, though he has a history of this sort of thing. He was one of the few people who endorsed Burchill’s piece earlier this year, and he’s made these tweets in the past:
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/224247086252703744
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/204250227371282432
Wow. Wow. Serious revision of my opinion of the man occurring. That said he did tweet some rather judgy stuff at me last year so the revision’s probably long overdue.
It’s been removed.
I really go to battle stations mentally when I hear someone use a term like “transphobic” or “transphobia”. Whatever Birchill is – she is not terrified of transsexuals as the term you’re applying to her suggests – and I tend to ignore most of what someone is saying if they resort to circus tricks in an article that’s somehow meant to influence my thinking.
And yeah – Birchill is guilty of the same kinds of tricks in her article. So this is some kind of a chick-fight … and I’m not really all that interested in it until the tops come off.
Now … she says this …
Which is damned accurate. Women – real women – have two “X” chromosomes, most of them have a monthly period, most of them do face menopause at some point, most of them possess the organic “piping” to have children and were born with a vagina that was not made by a man.
Now yes, you can “cherry pick” that and say that I’m saying that a woman who’s had a hysterectomy isn’t, somehow a real woman. That’s a lazy argument – and it’s not what I’m saying at all. Such a woman STILL has a vagina, she STILL has two “X” chromosomes, and still has natural boobs – even if they’re enhanced – they’re under there somewhere.
Maybe I came to the argument late. I missed the part of the class where it was explained, scientifically of course – just how a “transsexual” or a male who has been surgically altered to look like a woman – is in fact – EVERY BIT a woman as one born with two “X” chromosomes and two ovaries.
Someone explains it to me (and really, I DO have an open mind). However, until someone explains it to me (and many like-minded others) in a way that makes sense, these kinds of articles that allege a “transphobic” mental illness on all who don’t follow the gospel of the religion of the transexuals – simply won’t impress me very much.
If a male can become female – then certainly it’s possible for me, a White American, to become “transracial” and become African-American?
Perhaps someone who has never served in the military can simply don a uniform and some medals and force those of us who have to accept them as “veterans”?
No … just … no.
Being a veteran is about the past (what you were and what you did). Being a man/woman is about the present (how you interact with others), so your analogy fails.
Transexuals will never have children, true. But not all cisgendered will either (even ignoring homosexuals). Some women look less feminine than others… are you going to test their chromosomes?
Also, the “phobe” suffix can mean “hatred” as well as “fear”. Burchill might not fear transsexuals, but she sure hates them.
I have to agree with SomeGuySomewhere here. If being a ‘real’ woman (whatever that is) is to do with supposedly biological matters, wouldn’t the large number of second-wave feminists who have never had children – Burchill and Bindel among them – not also somehow be ‘betraying’ their gender?
The fact remains that most people who present and are accepted as cis (i.e. not trans) women don’t even know what their chromosonal status is anyway. I do, because of having worked in genetic typing in a forensic science lab, but that’s unusual.
For me one of the biggest ‘aha’ moments I had was when talking to a trans woman acquaintance, and I had to ask her, ‘did you lose male privilege? Because as a cis woman, I’m not sure I know what people mean by that and if it even exists.’ Her patiently schooling me on what it is, and what it’s like to lose it, was an eye-opener. That’s not to say there aren’t advantages to being a woman, but I’d posit that trans women get the negative aspects cis women face, plus the added hate that comes simply from transitioning. I’ll never experience that.
I found this http://skepchick.org/2013/10/44379/ to be an interesting and informative exploration both of questions around what constitutes gender, and what’s currently going on in the UK media debate.
Oops, just to correct myself here – Burchill did have a child with Tony Parsons, but famously had no hand in raising that child. Bindel however is childless as are many public feminists of a certain vintage. Doesn’t make them ‘less women’.
Well your trans-woman acquaintance was certainly an esoteric one if she knew what it was like to lose “male privilege” – what is that? I’m male and I don’t know – is that the right to be used as cannon-fodder in wars?
I just read the article you linked to – but it is heavily “gender-centric” – and this is a concept I don’t agree with fully. The word, “Gender”, prior to the 50’s was used to refer to language constructs. It was John Money who tried to re-invent the word – and it was feminists in the 70’s that adopted and gave credibility to his theories. Let’s not forget though – that this “gender” notion proposed by Money WAS and still IS a THEORY. And what’s worse – it’s a PSYCHOLOGICAL theory – which means it belongs in a unique category of “science” where every theory is thrown into a “bucket” and people pick and choose from said bucket whatever makes them feel good.
I don’t have a connection to either Money or his feminist apologists. I’m not one of those people who thinks that sex needs to be “overthought” or blessed with a plethora of categories. I don’t know what a “cis” is – and I have no desire to immerse myself in any culture that does.
Which is why this is such a silly argument to me … I wouldn’t have commented (okay yeah I would have – I always comment but I wouldn’t have so bluntly) at all had you not used the term “phobic” – which is also a psychological term that you seem to be ignoring the meaning of and using to smear someone. The fact that I don’t like the lady you’re smearing any more than you do – doesn’t change the fact that it’s a poor debate tactic – labeling your opponent as “mentally ill”.
Look – I’m not too smart – I’m a fucking bouncer in a bar and 2/3rds of the time I’m chasing a skirt. But I can tell you – that even amongst “transsexuals” there has to be a plethora of categories of those. I’ve seen a transsexual enter the bar one night dressed in a skirt – and the next night he’s back in dungarees and a muscle shirt – so if you think I’m giving THAT guy “status” as “woman” – equal to all others? Nope, I’m not.
I have too much respect for women – and yes, that is EXACTLY what it is – RESPECT. There IS a whole experience associated with being female – of growing up as a female, of thinking like a female – and no man can (even an effeminate one) can understand that.
I have no problems with transsexuals. I live in New Orleans – they’re a part of the culture here. If a guy fucks with a trans in my bar that guy is getting thrown out of the bar – end of story.
However, I’m not going to sit here and give equal weight to transsexual “womaness” as I will natural “womanness”.
Well, for your example of a ‘transsexual’ coming in presenting as female one day and male the next… that doesn’t sound like any definition of the term ‘transsexual’ I know of. Crossdresser, that fits your description. Is it possible that you’re conflating two very different categories of people? I know for a fact that most of my trans friends wouldn’t be caught dead presenting as their birth gender.
The thing about ‘woman-ness’, as you’ve stated it, is that it’s ultimately an _intangible_ quality used to denigrate and otherize trans women. It’s somewhat impossible to define in any specific manner, beyond to say that cisgender women have ‘it’, and transgender women don’t have ‘it’, which seems to be the only guiding principle necessary to determine its validity as a statement of truth. But in my experience, I’ve known men who were born female, I’ve known women who were born male, and I don’t feel it’s my place or my right to determine whether or not their ‘man-ness’ or ‘woman-ness’ is in any way less honest or less truthful than that of cis people. I identify my female friends as women, first and foremost. I don’t think those whom happen to be trans are in any way less credible. I also think that the relative invisibility of trans men is hilarious, because it strikes me as ultimately so absurd that we’re so willing to debate ‘woman-ness’ while rendering the discussion about ‘man-ness’ to a matter of such little consequence that it’s not even worth talking about with anywhere near the same gravity that ‘woman-ness’ seems to demand.
It always strikes me that so MANY people are willing and able to treat them (trans women) as they treat all other women (in all the good ways and awful ways that entails), until their trans status becomes apparent. Then, and only then, do I get to hear about people going cold or distant. It seems to me that it’s not a lack of ‘woman-ness’ that seems to be the problem here… it’s the baggage that _other_ people bring to the table regarding their own concepts and understandings of ‘woman-ness’ which suddenly become so very relevant after the topic of transgender comes up, now that it’s not assumed as a given. It’s a level of skepticism and a judgmental mindset that has more to do with the frustratingly naive and simplistic perceptions of gender that most people never grow past. The problem, then, is obviously not whether trans women are ‘really’ the gender they claim to be. It’s everyone else inferring some level of falseness associated so strongly with trans people. Me, I’d feel wretched trying to dictate to other human beings who or what they are, based on MY personal views. It’s not my place to decide for other people who they are, it’s my place to respect who they show me that they are.
Start by trusting trans people, take their word for it when they say who they are and how they identify. It’s easy to discriminate, but ultimately discrimination is about placing yourself above others.
Don’t be so sure.
Last I checked the amelogenin dropout rate for SGM+ was about 0.4% for Europeans (higher for other ‘races’). Maybe you just missed your Y chromosome.
A male forensic scientist I know in Melbourne types as female with Profiler Plus and SGM+ but male with other primers.
Ha, good point!
I’m afraid I’m woefully ignorant on how DNA testing actually works, and am not yet famous enough to have had the knowledge magically bestowed on me the way it is with celebrities, cops and politicians (who as you know are experts in whatever they choose to opine about). So what you’re saying is that the presence of a “Y” chromosome is detected secondhand, by detecting a chemical which is present in it but not in an “X” chromosome? And that a DNA sample which tests “female” is actually one which lacks that chemical marker?
Amelogenin is a protein that has something or other to do with the production of tooth enamel but when a geneticist says she is testing amelogenin she really means she is looking at the genes that code for it.
There are amelogenin genes on both the X and Y chromosome but the one on the Y is typically shorter than the one on X by six base pairs so if you snip them out of the chromosome, bind a fluorescent dye to them, separate them by size via capillary action or gel electrophoresis then shine your laser at them you’ll get one band for XX and two for XY.
But there’s several ways mutations can throw you off.
1. Some men don’t have an amelogenin gene on their Y chromosome.
2. There have also been very rare cases of men with Y chromosome amelogenin genes the same length as the X.
3. But more common is mutations in the DNA surrounding the amelogenin gene that either causes the restriction enzymes (“gene shears”) used to cut them out of the chromosome to miss them or prevents the RNA-binding dyes from attaching to them. This is called a ‘dropout’.
If any of these things happen the gene on the Y chromosome will not be detected and you will only get one band, giving the impression there are no Y chromosomes in the sample but if the problem is a dropout another DNA test kit which uses different binding or shearing sites may still work.
It’s also theoretically possible for a PCR error called ‘stutter’ to incorrectly duplicate the X-chromosome amelogenin gene and produce two bands so an XX could be incorrectly typed as XY, but I’ve never heard of it actually happening.
Amelogenin is the only protein coding DNA sequence normally used in forensic science. The other genetic loci tested are all non-coding (“junk”) DNA but the principles regarding dropout and stutter are the same.
So you’ll fuck a transsexual? Answer that for me.
I mean – if she’s truely every bit “woman” as one born that way – why would you not.
See – that’s where your logic fails. And you failed to address any of my other points. And no one has explained to me why, scientifically, I should call a male who’s been surgically altered – a female.
And yes – being a veteran IS akin to being a female – there’s a whole experience that comes with both. I really love this … “Well I am a woman born in a male’s body.” Really – so you KNOW what a woman feels like?
I will continue to stand on the science here thank you – until someone can explain to me why a transexual is every bit woman as one made by Mother Nature.
If you have two gay men, one of whom has been out of the closet his whole life and the other has only come out recently, that doesn’t make the latter any less gay than the former.
I know men who have slept with men for their entire lives – and they’re not out of the closet yet. Your point?
If no men—gay or straight—were willing to fuck trans women, there wouldn’t be any trans women working as sex workers. Personally, I would rather have sex with a cis woman, but fuckability has nothing to do with civil rights. Here’s a better question for you, krulac. If a trans woman were forced to use the men’s restroom while you were inside, would you let them go in peace or would you give them crap for wearing a dress?
Why? Let’s explore this. If a a transexual = female then why would you have a preference.
Nothing I said should be construed that I would remove civil rights from trans. I certainly would not. My argument is – I agree with Birchill that they aren’t REAL women. She doesn’t classify them as women – and neither do I (and – based on your answer – neither do you).
Glad to see that we are in both agreement that cis women and trans women are physically different, and trans people (not just women) deserve basic civil rights. But joining feminists in preaching “You’re not a real woman!” is a crap game that I do not wish to play. If I argue with somebody over sex work or human sexuality, it’s because the people I disagee with over these issues are arguing for laws and policies that hurt people. I don’t see where somebody is being hurt if a man in a dress goes to the restroom. (EITHER restroom.)
If a trans woman refuses to be treated for a prostrate problem or insists on visiting a gynocologist, the facts of life need to be firmly told to them. That not being the case, I have no problem calling them women and treating them respectfully.
I’ll join with Satan himself if he’s arguing a logical point against an illogical one made by Jesus Crist. I’m not one of those people who refuse to take a side simply because of the company I’d be keeping by doing so.
I do not like neo-feminists – I think they have a warped, illogical view of the sexes. This doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with them when they say that a woman doing work should get the same pay as a man doing that exact same work. It doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with them when they say that a woman with a penis – really shouldn’t be given the status of “full womanhood” … nor given equal credibility when arguing what it means to actually be a woman.
And I agree with her point that it’s kind of absurd that our side wishes to send out an army of “chicks with dicks” as the “shock troops” of our movement!
But really … Birchill’s biggest mistake … she didn’t allow me to write her article. It would have been succinct and to the point … here it is …
Seriously – I “hear” about all this “backslapping” about how “we really dished it to that “anti” person” – or whoever. Most of us out here in RealVille aren’t even watching – don’t even care. I care about this blog – I come here every day to read it and I’ve done it for several years. There are places on the internet where there is a “real” bang for the buck when it comes to communicating with people. I just don’t see it in Twitter.
Well the evidence I’ve left behind shows I’m pretty non-specific as far as sex partners goes, regardless of sex or gender.
That said, I do much prefer to have a man as an emotional partner so have always called myself “functionally heterosexual”. And yes, I suppose that does mean I would be open to a relationship with a trans man!
I was addressing that to “someguy”, Doc – not you.
I have no idea whether I’ll fuck a transsexual. I have never met one (or didn’t notice if I did). I also don’t want to fuck each and every woman I meet.
Being a woman is akin to being a soldier (which is where the experience comes from), not being a veteran (I assume you mean “veteran soldier”, by the way, the word is an adjective that means you’ve been doing something for a long time). Veterans are defined by their past: they were soldiers. Men and women are defined by how they interact with the world (how they are perceived and how they act).
It’s not a hard question … you meat a woman … you take her home – you’re hot for her – you remove her clothes – THERE’S A DICK THERE.
What do you do?
I mean – I’m only being obscene here because this is so simple! 😛
Freudian typo?
LOL – I have no idea why I do that – but it pisses me off! I know the correct word to use … just as I know when to use the word “know” … and yet sometimes I post and … shit … it says “no”!
For a lot of people, this would be a bonus, not a flaw 🙂
As re: your earlier question, does male privilege have to do with being cannon fodder in wars… well, yes, that’s a part of the male experience – it was a very long time before I realised that there were some situations that, as a woman, I regard as perfectly safe but men would be wary of; and we often hear about the reverse, of course. There are privileges and there are drawbacks, as with women’s experiences.
The larger point was that, as a cis woman who will always be a cis woman, these have to be pointed out to me before I see them. As is often the case with cis men often not being able to “see” what women regard as threatening or dangerous. A trans woman has seen both sides, and could explain to me how these affected her.
Ah Dr Magnanti, if only you were here a few months back when we were discussing privilege checking.
Doc, I don’t know what “male privilege” is … I don’t give it to any man.
Now, what I certainly do … is when I was in the military – I used to give priority to the guys to do heavy laborious work. Meaning … I’ve got a lot of heavy shit to move – or a physical situation that demands strength … I default to assigning the completion of that to guys.
But when I had to have clear communications – I used to assign those roles to gals – because I feel, no I’m certain, that women are better communicators than men are.
I look at women as equals … and often superiors to men. Don’t take this to mean that I’m a submissive male though – I’m far from that. I have a special relationship with women – that I love. I drool over them and think about their bodies – and how good they feel – but I also like talking to them and getting their advice when I have a problem. Yin and Yang – I believe that is how evolution created us – men are good at things women aren’t. Women are good at things men aren’t. At the end of the day – their strengths and weaknesses complement each other – we are a species of animal and there is not one without the other. No man can enjoy a decent life without a good woman at his side – and no woman can enjoy the same without a good man.
And yeah – some guys may like to have sex with trans … but I would submit those guys have a bit of bisexuality built into them that they may or may not wish to acknowledge. Me, if I see a dick on a girl – I’m walking out the door – uhm, there’s not going to be any sex there – I cannot “get it up” with a dude.
The whole “male privilege”, “white privilege”, etc. thing is BS. Those who use these terms are simply saying that anyone who is fortunate enough to be born with these characteristics (1) has an automatic advantage in life, (2) that advantage is somehow “unfair”, and (3) therefore the target has no business having an opinion about whatever subject you were talking about before the accusation of “privilege” was leveled. I call BS on all such claims.
It appears to me that Krulac’s notion of “real womanhood” is exactly the same idea, synonymous with “male privilege.” If I’m wrong, please explain.
FWIW, I have had sex with a trans-woman and would again (though probably not with anybody I knew when they were male; that would “weird me out” a little too much).
My answer still stands: I have never been in that situation, so I don’t know (simple answer, really). It’s not how I understood your question, though. I was assuming post-operative (in your words, “a man surgically altered to look like a woman”), meaning female genitalia.
Well there’s the confusion isn’t there? There’s post-ops and theres transsexuals with male parts. Part of what Birchill was saying is that these “chicks with dicks” aren’t real women.
How can I argue that point? I agree with her.
You know, not all people find dicks automatically repulsive, regardless of who they’re attached to.
And not all trans women have dicks, but I’m sure that’s not the point you’re trying to get at in your tired restatement of the whole “surprise dick out of nowhere” spiel.
Some trans women have a dick, and some people are into that. Some trans men have a vagina, and some people are into that too. This ridiculous tirade speaks more to your preferences than it does to everyone elses.
To answer your question as posed: Be really quite surprised, because it’s considered epically bad practice not to warn somebody before enough clothes have been removed for you to be able to tell.
To answer a question I hope you’ll consider equivalent in spirit – “You’re far enough into kissing that it’s pretty clear that clothing removal is intended to happen shortly and she tells you she’s trans – what do you do?” – the answer is that I made a mental note that I was going to need to be a trifle careful because I wasn’t sure how psychologically sensitive she’d be about her genitals, revised significantly upwards my expectation of my night involving anal sex, and carried on kissing her.
She was a hell of a lot of fun in bed and I regret nothing – and she panted, moaned and screamed just like I’d expect from a girl (and I know what gay men sound like and it ain’t anything like it).
In another comment you talk about repressed bisexual tendencies – well, mine aren’t exactly repressed but while I’ve fucked a few men I largely lost interest because I couldn’t … relate to them … in a way that meant I gave a shit sufficiently for it to be truly fun. One night stands bore the fuck out of me, though I’m entirely happy with fuckbuddy type relationships – “relate to” doesn’t have to mean full on romantic attachment.
Thing is … that basically meant my problem was with the mindset/personality – I can work, and enjoy working, the equipment just fine (hell, I’ve had female friends thank me for my lessons on how to swallow without really tasting it). But the mindset/personality of the transwomen I’ve fucked has registered perfectly fine in my brain as female, so I’ve had just as satisfying relationships with them as with XX partners.
Equally, a friend of mine is now publically out as female-to-male – and even though he hasn’t a chance in hell of passing as born-as-male with the body he has (which … damn but that’s a nice ass …) my attraction to him basically vanished once his personality shifted towards male sufficiently. Makes a hell of a drinking buddy and partner in being a professional bad influence in social situations, though.
I also need to point out that the various hormonal treatments they’re usually under means that their body is (and has for however long) flooded with estrogen and has had barely any testosterone for however long that’s been happening (reverse for ftm, but I’m less familiar with that because a lot of what I understand about this stuff comes from pillow talk). This means that a bunch of physical changes happen – loss of muscle mass and breast growth being the obvious ones, but there’s also a difference in skin sensitivity. A transwomen who’s been on hormones for a while reacts noticeably differently to being scratched/bitten/etc. to a man – in fact closer to her XX sistren than to a straight up man.
On top of this, there’s a difference in personality – the estrogen brings it out more in terms of higher levels of emotion and various other things but it’s not just the drugs – I’ve known a couple from before they started hormone therapy and there were a bunch of things about their personality that read as female (*not* effeminate … I get hit on by effeminate males all the damn time if I end up in a gay bar and it’s completely different – the only part of that experience that I enjoy is the fact that gay bar regulars tend to really enjoy a sarcastic, bitchy takedown delivered in a voice pitched to carry so I generally make new friends in the process of getting rid of them).
Post-op … I have minimal experience of, other than flirting with one for a while and then being volunteered to be the test driver as a result – but my one data point sayeth that (1) it isn’t nearly as deep as an original, but otherwise feels almost entirely normal (2) there’s no actual clitoris but the nerve bundle’s in basically the same place so if you use your fingers on the approximate area you can definitely tell when you find the right spot because the reaction is exactly the same as the first moment you touch an actual clitoris. Oh, and emotionally it reminded me a lot of the recent divorcees I’ve been a transitional fuck for – except in her case the abusive/broken relationship she’d just got out of was with her own body rather than with another human – certainly the libido jump and reasonably rapid finding of a proper relationship with somebody who wasn’t a complete slut like me happened on about the same schedule.
The girl I mentioned at the start passes full-time as male – unless you’ve actually studied up you’re incredibly unlikely to be able to tell. One of the ones I’ve known since before she started on hormones passes full-time too now – well enough that the last girl she pulled actually didn’t believe her to begin with (although obviously found the physical evidence convincing once they finished undressing), so evidently there’s a point beyond which both genders can’t tell the difference.
Which, realistically, is the biggest point I have to make – the ones you’re making your judgements based on are the ones that *don’t* pass. Because the ones that pass, you’ll never know are trans unless they choose to tell you, and generally once somebody passes then unless you’re a very close friend or hopefully about to become a bed partner, they’re not going to. It’s actually a very similar mistake to judging all hookers based on streetwalkers, because the streetwalkers are the only ones you can actually see and identify as such.
So, there’s your answer and I hope a reasonable stab at explaining it to you. I’ve told the blog to notify me of follow-up comments so I’ll hopefully respond to any questions/criticisms/whatever you have as I find time.
Hi Krulac,
Interesting to read your response to Brooke’s call for a more inclusive, less violent approach to feminism.
Two questions:
Why does it matter to you that transwomen not be considered women?
Given your citation of chromosomes as evidence of gender, please could you recommend somewhere I could have mine tested? The place yours were tested will be sufficient – I’d just like to check (as I’m sure you understand having had yours tested) that I am a real woman before speaking as one. I’d hate to mislead anyone.
Thanks!
Hi krulac,
Interesting to read your respokse to Brooke’s call for a more inclusive, less violent approach to feminism.
Two questions:
Why does it matter to you so much that trans women not be counted as women?
Please could you recommend somewhere I can get my chromosomes tested? The same place you got yours tested would be fine. I’m sure you understand that until I have the medical evidence to prove that I am a woman it would be inappropriate for me to speak as one.
Thanks!
How is her approach less violent? I stopped reading your sod right at that sentence because you are accusing my position of being violent. I have never been violent to any man who didn’t deserve it. And no – trans people don’t deseve it.
Krulac, trans women may not be women in the physical sense as cis women like Maggie who were born with two “X” chromosomes. But I think even you would agree that as different as they are from everyone else, they are human beings and they deserve better than the crap some guy and nearly all feminists give them. They are in a worse position than cis sex workers because cis women can quit sex work, repent, and eventually be accepted by feminists as one of them. Even if trans women never work in the sex industry, they are forever branded the enemy by feminists because of who they are, not what they do.
Which reminds me, there is something you said a couple of months ago which I should have responded to at the time, but I’m going to do so now. You said that if you were on a desert island with a group of men and women, and one of them was a trans woman, you’d say that that person would give up the fantasy that she was a woman and do men’s work. I’d like to suggest an alternative. Instead of saying to this person, “Al, wake up! You’re a guy! We all have to survive here, so stop pretending you’re a woman and do guy stuff!” you say, “Alice? There’s this boulder we have to move to make a shelter and the rest of us guys aren’t strong enough to move it. You’re the stongest girl. Could you give us a hand and then go back to the weaving?”
I know there are a lot of romantic books (and several successful reality TV shows) about being marooned in the wilderness, but that’s not a situation I look forward to. I am grateful to my ancestors for inventing the trappings of civilization so I need not worry about building a shelter to keep me warm and dry from the snow and rain. Not everyone has it in them to be Les Stroud.
Eddie – that’s why, in the luxurious world we currently live in – I don’t have a problem with men dressing as women or acting the part.
But on a desert island – the situation changes to one of survival.
And – as one who lived through Katrina’s aftermath – up close and personal – I can tell you that civilization hangs by a thin thread – and it doesn’t take much to make it disappear. Soooo … yes, thank your ancestors – but remember that civilization isn’t something YOU should take for granted.
Thanks for clarifying. Hopefully none of us will ever get stuck on said island.
The fact that you label trans issues as ‘fantasies’ is entirely Western-centric and ignores that for many human cultures, gender is not defined as we define it, and that quite a few pre-industrial cultures have definitions of gender which can include three or even five genders, just to limit myself to the ones I have read about.
Trans people are identifying themselves within the perceived boundaries of the concepts of gender we recognise as valid. The weakness of gender as a label is that it is an individual’s own perception of their gender that defines their gender identity. We’re all people, regardless. Even in your ‘desert island’ hypothetical, presenting trans issues as a ‘fantasy’ or ‘frivolous’ or whatever, speaks more of your lack of personal understanding of what being trans is. It’s a mistake a lot of cis folk make.
OK, krulac, I’ll have a go at explaining. Firstly, you must be clear about what you mean by sex and by gender. The usual differentiation today is ‘biological’ and ‘social’. But even the biology is complicated.
Up until a few hundred years ago, the dominant philosophical and scientific paradigm was that there was only one sex. Unsurprisingly, that sex was male; a female was an ‘inverted’ male, the penis turned inside out to form a vagina. The (ancient Greek) binary idea of ‘two’ is quite recent; there are male and female, and the two differ in their genitalia; and later, in their chromosomes. Confusingly, if we think that ‘male’ is XY and ‘female’ is XX, it’s the opposite in birds. And there are many people who are biologically ‘correct’ but who are missing a few bits, or even have a few extra bits. As for ‘intersex’, it can be impossible at birth to say on physical examination if the baby is ‘male’ or ‘female’.
The ancients were sort of right about there being only one ‘sex’; the default embryo is ‘female’. You and I started out in the first few weeks in the womb with an organ arrangement that, without the Y chromosome, would leave us with a ‘female’ body. The scrotum is a fusion of the labia majora; the labia minora fuse in the male around the urethra and join with the fused corpora cavernosa to form the male penis. The glans penis is the expanded part of the corpus spongiosum, the fused labia minora. So, the clitoris, the head of which is the fused corpora cavernosa, is not exactly the homologue of the dependent part of the male penis. What will be the prostate is (probably) the glands of Skene, around the female urethra; the female uterus is (probably) the prostatic utricle in the female.
So, in a way there is only one ‘sex’, and that sex is female; you and I have had the female anatomy rearranged because of the influence of the Y chromosome, itself a very miserable remnant. And not just the Y chromosome; it’s more and more clear that external influences can and do alter the development of the foetus. So, don’t be surprised that all sorts of things can go wrong in foetal development, particularly in the development of the genitals. Indeed, it’s reckoned that around 50% of spontaneous abortions have some sort of ‘chromosomal’ abnormality.
It’s also possible to have various permutations of X and Y; XO, for example is Turner’s syndrome, a ‘female’ who also isn’t a ‘female’.
So, even something as simple as ‘sex’ is full of difficulties.
Then there is ‘gender’, and I freely admit that I do find this more inchoate and difficult. It seems to be the social and cultural feelings and expectations that you and I have. If I’ve never understood women, and don’t expect to do so now, I really can’t imagine what a ‘biological man’ would feel or think, when ‘he’ thinks that he should be ‘female’. But it’s now such a well-recognised state that I simply have to take it on trust. I also recognise that this can be very conflicting, and at times, very depressing. In the UK, before gender reassignment surgery, the person must live as a female for at least a year (if I remember correctly), meaning wearing female clothing, taking hormones etc. Anyone who can go through such a regime must be very motivated, and must be really serious.
It’s also interesting that ‘male’ to ‘female’ transsexualism is apparently so common now; it’s not clear to me if this represents a real increase, or a more accepting populace. Or whether it is a manifestation of the environment; it’s well known that many plastics are full of chemicals which are, effectively, synthetic oestrogens. If (some of) the male/female distinction is due to chromosomes, is it possible that the gender differences, a brain imprinting perhaps, are environmental? You are not just your genes, you are also a product of your environment, and also, your mother’s environment. If the womb was once seen as somewhere where you were totally protected from all noxious influences, this is no longer accepted.
Discussions around sex versus gender are not assisted by second-wave feminists who seem to speak from a position of ideology rather than from knowledge.
(My apologies, Maggie, for the length of this comment.)
A “few hundred years ago” puts us in the time of Charles II – and I really don’t think he thought of women as “inverted males”.
Also – when I read the Bible – I cannot find a lot of the “inverted male” theory there either – and it’s considerably older than a few hundred years. Yes – I’m sure you are right that that theory was out there – but even in that theory – there are TWO distinct sexes … “non-inverted males” and “inverted males” … six of one – half dozen the other.
How nature produces a male – doesn’t make that male any less of a male. There are fish in the animal kingdom who are born female – and they convert naturally to males when there is a lack of them. That doesn’t make them less male. However, humans aren’t fish – and embryonic development in the womb is not too relative to this discussion of men who dress as women.
Not really – although there ARE chromosomal abnormalities – those ARE abnormalities and they are a MINORITY. You cannot dismiss the science of sex identification on this basis – a science which works for the vast majority of the human population.
An aside here … the IOC recently cleared post-op transsexuals for competition in the Olympics. I would like to point out the hypocrisy of telling a man he can’t inject testosterone to compete with men but he CAN inject estrogen in order to compete with the girls. I just had to giggle about that when I saw it!
I’m not impressed that you point out that my arguments only work 90% of the time – when yours work even less than that. The only “perfect” argument I’ve ever met is … “What goes up, must come down”.
And … even THAT’s not 100 percent perfect.
GENDER – I’ve already stated it’s not a theory I’m totally aboard with. But who cares? Even if I were – I would still argue that SEXUALLY BEING a woman should be one of the criteria for being judged as one.
I’ve no idea what Charles II believed, though the single sex theory was out of favour in his time; you need to go back a bit further in time. As for the Bible; it’s hardly a scientific manual.
More to the point, what we accept as ‘normal’ and ‘correct’ today, the binary theory of sexuality, might well be disproved in the future.
As for ‘abnormal’; this is a statistical designation, meaning that >± standard deviations from the mean, the most likely if you will.
A story; many, many years ago in Australia, a male baby underwent a circumcision. The surgeon used unipolar diathermy, and fried his penis to a cinder. (Unipolar diathermy coagulation conducts the heat through blood vessels to the plate; the blood vessels of the penis are end-arteries. For the penis and the fingers and toes, only bipolar diathermy should be used, if it is really necessary to use any diathermy; here the heat passes between the two tips of the forceps.)
Anyhow, the parents were advised that the boy should be surgically converted to a female, and he was; he was, inter alia, castrated: ‘gender reassignment surgery’. He was brought up from then on as a girl.
Anyhow, during adolescence, this person suffered severely from problems with sexual identification. Eventually, he was surgically converted from ‘female’ to ‘male’. Now, a female to male conversion isn’t always as functionally successful as the other way round. This young person, having suffered for a decade or so after the teenage surgery eventually committed suicide.
This person didn’t have a testosterone surge at puberty; he did have Y chromosomes only, but despite many years of being reared as a girl, still identified as male.
How many more stories and argument does it take to make it clear that biological sex and social and cultural gender are different; and while they are aligned for most people, for a few they simply aren’t?
And how is it possible to open the minds of those second wave feminists whose sclerotic ideology is totally impervious to reason?
Why – I think you just made my point. 😉
It doesn’t take any more – for me.
However, that’s not what we’re discussing. What we are discussing is Burchill’s assertion that an altered male is not really on par with a “natural” woman when it comes to talking about what it means to BE a woman – and what the female experience – from birth, really is.
And what the good Doctor Magnanti is saying … that such altered males should be given equal authority when it comes to speaking about being female.
I’m sorry – Doc Magnanti is heaps hotter than Burchill, clearly has a better understanding of the male / female relationship and … her sexual prowess is legendary. Certainly – I would like to side with her on this but I have to go with the bitty – Burchill here.
One more thing – this “transphobic” slur … really is sophomoric …
Not only is it a complete perversion of the use of the psychological term “phobia” – and this perversion is inexcusable for anyone who trots out psychology as “science” from time to time.
But it’s also a perversion of the word “trans”. If you’re going to construct a slur – DO IT RIGHT. A “Transphobic” person? Who are you honestly talking about? Someone who’s terrified of transsexuals? Or someone who’s terrified of transoceanic voyages? Or trans-intercontinental flights? Or maybe just TRANSportation in general?
I mean seriously – anyone who uses that term ought to be ashamed of themselves. Ought to more ashamed that an “Okie” like me has to be the one to point it out to them!
Isn’t it obvious that TERFs have no empirical rationale for their assertions? Theirs are political polemics; the aggro and notoriety that is the result serves firstly to polish their egos, and secondly to increase the circulations of the organs for which they write. Which is why, in part, that they do it.
I don’t care why they do it, Korhomme … but constructed “women” are different from “real” women and that’s my position, and it’s not influenced by any “Terfs”.
I’ll turn that around though and say that what people are arguing here today is based more in emotion than it is in science.
I mean – just look at Doc Magnanti’s language. On the one hand she wishes to give trans “women” “sameness” with natural women. If they are the same – then why the need for the term “cis”?
If they are the same – which is what everyone here is asserting – then, post op – a transsexual should be “magically” turned into a full red-blooded woman. So why, if this is what you believe – do you continue to make a distinction between the two?
JUST AS I DO. LOL
Jesus, all this arguing when everyone is one the Internet- ONE OF THE GREATEST AND EASIEST RESEARCH SYSTEMS OF ALL TIME… Why isn’t anyone using it?!? Anyways, my wife is transgendered, so I know a thing or two about the process. Yes we’ve had sex- why that matters is more than I know, but there you go, and we’ve had sex both at the pre-op and post-op phases. Again why it matters to you, I don’t know but I’m not backing down on any phase of this. Gender is not physical, it is mental. We see genitals, and therefore think that is your gender. That’s as true as the cell phone in your hand (made by Motorola or Apple) being your cell phone carrier (AT&T or Verizon). Your brain has a bit called a pituitary gland. Slice it open on a man and you see a black diamond. Slice it open on a woman and you get an outline of a diamond. Slice it open on a transwoman…and you get an outline of a diamond. So you have now a person outwardly displaying one thing while their brain says something else. They’re not stupid; they know the social consequences of breaking one of the most dear taboos in the Western world. But after a time, the brain wins out over the body and the change has to occur for their own sanity. No, you don’t know what it’s like. Your brain (and mine) is aligned as cisgendered. Again you’re on the Internet, people study this sort of thing. If you don’t want that, drop a dime on your local TG SW and she’ll tell you all about it.But please stop projecting what it’s like. We can accept there are gay animals, us among them. Is it really so hard to believe we would not be exempt from transsexualism as well? It’s not the fault of transpeople our bodies are so complex that the outside does not change well at all (our ability to regenerate limbs is crappy, too). Nature has a way of disabusing our beliefs; let’s drop the beliefs when they start getting in the way of reality.
Wan Fu! YOU WALK THE TALK!
My assertion is that any man who says a transgendered woman is “all woman” but – won’t fuck her – is a bullshitter.
You … are NOT a bullshitter my friend.
But … you are an “anecdote” sir – and not representative of most men.
I disagree wholeheartedly with most of your assertions about transsexualism and I note that the internet you are “plugging” is full of false facts.
The pituitary diamond is interesting – yet you don’t fully describe it. Are you talking about post-op? Pre-op? Or both? In fact, taking you up on YOUR suggestion to check the internet … I googled the following …” transexuals and pituitary gland diamond”
I got nothing.
In any case – I doubt we cut up a pituitary without doing grievous damage to the person it belongs to.
Make no mistake here … if Burchill is saying that transgendered “women” can’t argue feminist principals and the “female experience” as well as she and her natural sisters can – then I stand with her.
Because what everyone here is arguing – is that somehow an “altered” man – or soon to be altered man can understand what it’s like to be a woman. That’s ridiculous on it’s face.
Because – the one thing all you guys are ignoring is the physical side of this. You are asserting that somehow the “mind” makes up for the physical difference. You can’t explain exactly HOW the mind does that – just that … even in a man with a dick who thinks he’s a girl – he’s a girl in his head alright.
I’m sorry – that makes ZERO sense.
I just can’t get past the gut reaction that the “transgendered” are, either in potential or fact, victims of unscrupulous surgeons. You are what you were born as, up until the time (probably not too distant) when you can have a completely re-gendered body rather than a butchered fake. Until then you should view anyone who claims that (s)he can change your gender with profound suspicion.
But plastic surgery that doesn’t repair damage or remediate serious problems creeps me out, too. Not necessarily the people who have it done to them; the surgeons who sell it.
Exactly right. People like to “hypothesize” about chromosomal abnormalities that “might” make a male a female …
But what’s the ACTUAL REALITY within the population of transsexuals? I saw a University of Rome study that indicated the overwhelming number of transsexuals had completely normal MALE XY chromosomes. So even if there are significant numbers of people with chromosomal abnormalities – it’s irrelevant to this discussion unless those are the people having their sexes altered – which there is no body of evidence anywhere to suggest.
I ask … is chromosomal testing a PRE-REQUISITE before sexual alteration? It would be good information for the patient to have certainly.
I theorize … that such testing is not a pre-requisite – which gets right back to your point of them being victims of unscrupulous surgeons.
I’m an idiot … but I just went through the list of female chromosomal abnormalities and could not find a single damn one that included a “Y” chromosome. (X0 / XXX / or more rarely XXXX or XXXXX / and “mosaics” XX/XXX ) … uhm – where’s the “Y” chromosome guys? Anywhere?
And conversely – I couldn’t find a single male chromosomal abnormality that didn’t include it. (XXY / or more rarely XXXY or / XY/XXY mosaic / or XYY – the “supermen” … hypersexual males who wouldn’t be the least interested in cutting their wads off.) … where is the Y chromosome NOT present in every single one of these abnormalities?
And … almost all of these abnormalities “represent” in some physical form – even the slight ones. The more severe ones, don’t just manifest physically – but also MENTALLY – so be careful of who you’re advocating as a spokesperson for women. However, as indicated above – I think most transsexuals are completely normal males – chromosomally – so this shouldn’t be a factor.
All modern cars have a chip which control’s the car’s electronics. Now, imagine that someone took the chip for a sports car and plugged it into the socket of one of the company’s trucks. To all outward appearances, the thing is a truck, but it doesn’t think it’s a truck; it thinks it’s a sports car, and will be sending out control signals and interpreting received data as a sports car would. Now, if that were to happen in real life we could just switch the chip; however, in humans we don’t even know where that “chip” is, much less how to change it. We can, however, modify the vehicle to fit the chip. It’s a crude alteration to be sure, but good enough for many of those with the problem.
One thing you and the neofeminists both seem to be assuming is that all transgender individuals have physical characteristics more closely approximating that of the birth sex, but that isn’t true; I’ve seen before and after pics where the “before” looked like someone trying to pass as the opposite sex, and the “after” looked normal or even exceptional. It may be that the “Y” chromosome in some transwomen is defective so that it doesn’t “switch on” until much later in development, producing a baby which grows up distinctly feminine in form & mentality despite having male (or sometimes undifferentiated) genitalia.
Then how do you know it even exists?
And that’s an interesting … theory.
However, note – that no one has produced a single shred of evidence that those who undergo a sex change have ANYTHING abnormal going on with their X/Y chromosomes. Not a single shred. I refuse to accept it as evidence. Now – if you can prove that a substantial number of transsexuals have a problem with the XY combination – then you have a point. Simply noting that one exists is not proof at all – IF the individuals who have the abnormality don’t feel the need for a sex change.
When you say “you can alter the vehicle” – you have made Schofield’s point for him – because modifying the vehicle is an absurd solution. Put another way … “damn – I can’t get this ashtray out of the vehicle and it’s full – guess I’ll have to buy another car.” That’s ludicrous.
“Transexual” men would be much better served by investigating the CAUSE of their abnormality (and it IS an abnormality – by definition) – BEFORE undergoing the surgery.
In any case – none of this gives a transsexual “woman” equal authority to a natural woman when it comes to speaking on female issues.
No. You’re obsessing about the chromosomes, which have nothing to do with it. Autopsies on transwomen have shown that one of the brain’s organs (I can’t remember which but I don’t think it’s the pituitary) are the same size as those on women, but those of normal genetic men are larger. Similar studies have shown that the hippocampus (another brain organ) is smaller in gay men than hetero men.
The “chip” has nothing to do with chromosomes; it seems to be a congenital defect (resulting from uterine environment or whatever) rather than a genetic one. I merely proposed that a chromosomal abnormality MIGHT explain why some transwomen look more like women than men even prior to getting hormones; that has nothing to do with their gender image, though.
EDIT: Here you go; the area is called the BSTc. And it shows up differently on a brain scan as well as an autopsy.
That’s an interesting article; it would be even more impressive if the brains could be scanned before and after surgery, showing a similar result. The New Scientist is an excellent magazine, topical and reliable.
It’s only in the last few years that the ability of the brain to modify itself has been recognised; previously, it was firmly held that once the process of building the brain was finished, at around 5 years, then it was impossible for any structural changes to occur.
That’s a pop-psychology myth.
When I was studying psychology over thirty years ago neuroplasticity was already a well known phenomena in the context of those recovering from acquired brain injury (usually stroke) and in the reassignment of parts of the visual cortex in people with long term blindness.
What has happened lately is that the term has been expanded so much that it now covers practically all forms of learning and it has entered the domain of self-help gurus who try to add gloss to their quackery with a load of neurobabble.
The worst are ‘real’ neurologists like Susan Greenfield who justify quack teaching techniques such as ‘Brain Gym’ by claiming they exploit the plasticity of the brain, even though controlled trials have failed to demonstrate any benefit from them.
And 40+ years ago, when I was at Uni, we were taught that the brain’s anatomy was established early on, and was then ‘set in concrete’.
The concept of ‘reassignment’ isn’t quite the same as the growth of new neurons, dendrites etc. Wasn’t the London taxi drivers and their hippocampi one of the first studies to show this?
According to my 1970s ‘physiological psychology’ textbook (what they used to call it before they dropped all the endocrinal and hormonal stuff and narrowed it to ‘neurology’) dendrite growth was the favoured theory of the mechanism of neuroplasticity with neuron growth a controversial rival.
These days they will even tell you that changes in neurotransmitter receptor site density are examples of neuroplasticity.
My first physiological textbooks were from the mid 1960s; it was an accepted truth then that once all your brain neurons had formed, no new ones could grow, and that in the cerebral cortex they died off at a rate of 20,000 a day. One textbook also included a alarming sentence that went something like this:
Nothing is known about the cerebral cortex, except that it dissolves in alcohol. >
I would even go farther than that and say, why should a person’s sexual equipment have to be a major part of his/her identity (or self-definition)?
If cryonics turns out to work and I get to come back, one of the first things I want to do is get both types of equipment installed. (Obviously, the state of the art then will be much better than can be done today.)
I don’t know that I’d want both sets at the same time, but it might be interesting to be female from time to time. Though who knows if I could try it I might like it.
In the ‘Culture’ universe of the late Iain M Banks human life expectancy is over 300 years (subjectively – much longer relativistically) and anyone who doesn’t change gender at least once in that time is seen as a bit of a fuddy-duddy.
But as for me, it’s taken 52 years so far to learn what it means to be a guy and I don’t think I’m very close to an answer yet. I’d hate to get a new gender and have to go back to square one.
I’ve read exactly one of these “Culture” books, and I have mixed feelings about it. Then again I’ve been told that it’s the weakest of the bunch, so I’ll be trying another eventually.
IMHO the best one isn’t quite a Culture book but is in the same vein. Against a Dark Background. They are pure escapism but among the best executed escapism I’ve read.
Banks’ non-sci-fi and semi-sci-fi is far more substantial though and that’s what made him great. Try, in increasing order of darkness, Complicity,Walking on Glass or A Song of Stone. If you like Kafka you should like The Bridge too, I’m pretty sure it’s a homage. Whit is arguably his lightest non-sci-fi but it still demonstrates great sympathetic yet unflinching insight into the nature of cults and small community politics.
Thing is, what attracts me to the “Culture” series is the Culture itself. But if I fall in love with the author, I might end up reading all sorts of stuff. Didn’t happen with that first book, but it still could.
Funny. Though I enjoy Banks’ accounts of the Culture I find the Culture itself quite repulsive. It’s like some kind of interfering bunch of decadent and smugly self-satisfied liberal social workers gone galactic.
My sympathies lie with Bora Horza Gobuchul of Consider Phlebas. He betrays the Culture to team up with a bunch of vicious, warlike aliens – who ultimately kill him – because he figures it’s better to be attacked than patronised.
Consider Phlebas was the one I read, and of course it isn’t really set in the Culture, and its protagonist is an enemy of the Culture. Perhaps as I read more of these books, and get closer to the Culture and see things from their point of view, I won’t like them either.
At which point I’ll quit reading him altogether. I couldn’t root for Horza because, in addition to being on the wrong side of the war, he’s a bigot. His entire reason for opposing the Culture is because they extend personhood rights to self-aware machines, instead of keeping them in their “proper” place. For this he’s willing to kill (humans, machines, aliens, anybody), to die, and to risk the lives of others who have no dog in the fight. He’s like the Westboro group, except he has the balls to fight instead of simply annoy. Then again, I prefer that bigots be cowards, and Horza is no coward.
So I don’t like him. If I end up not liking the Culture either, then what’s the point of reading novels full of characters I can’t root for?
I prefer anti-heroes.
I can’t stand people who are more consistent and virtuous than me.
It’s the absence of a Y that produces ‘femaleness’, and the presence of a Y that produces ‘maleness’. That much is simple enough. What isn’t so clear is how effective some Ys are; there is certainly a suggestion that as a remnant of an X they might disappear within a few thousand years.
Neither is it wholly clear just what other intra-uterine effects from the environment; are oestrogen-like plasticisers really harmful? Nor is it clear what the effects of mosaicism are; this is the presence in the body of two different cell line, usually both cell lines are thought of as coming from the embryo. Usually, one cell line forms the great majority of cells, so the role of the minor component is unclear. Feto-maternal cell transmission has been known for a long time, as the basis for Rhesus incompatibility. But it’s now recognised that maternal cells can pass from the mother to the foetus, and persist. What, if any, the significance of this is unclear.
The effects on the foetus from treatment to the mother during pregnancy can be delayed for years. There was a vogue for treating expectant mothers with stilboestrol years ago; their daughters developed otherwise very rare cancers, such as cancer of the vagina, when in their late teens or early twenties.
What is clear is that the simplistic binary model of sexuality and gender is increasingly being challenged; the old certainties are significantly eroded.
That’s the problem though; imagining that there is such a distinction between “real women” and “butchered fakes”. You see, many of the 2nd wave radfems who despise trans women (they rarely comment on trans men) also use the same logic to despise and dehumanise cis women who have elective cosmetic surgeries.
Once we start down that road it’s a difficult line of logic to come back from. Would we call women who have experienced level 3 FGM to be ‘butchered fakes’? Is restorative mammoplasty ‘butchered fakes’?
For me it’s less about gender theory or even attempts to understand the biology, than how I live in the real world. My own ‘gut feeling’ is that it threatens me not one bit, lessens my womanhood not at all, for more people to be women. In fact, we’re already in the majority! The more the merrier says I.
My question for the radfems is why they feel so threatened by trans women. They focus almost exclusively on trans women who are lesbians, though of course not all are. It seems to me they’re experiencing perhaps a touch of paranoia, or a touch of worry that they, too, will someday be ‘un-women’. As Maggie details frequently in this blog, there’s a ‘pecking order’ of who is a permissible woman and who is not and the people who enforce that will do everything they can to deny your personhood. Trans women, sex workers, and women of colour (heaven help you if you’re all three) are very often at the bottom of that pile. Maybe the aggressors feel they need to keep us down, for fear they may end up there too.
I’d recommend that all the commenters here take a look at the blog of Zoe Brain, a trans woman who has gone some truly extraordinary life changes. Start at her archives in May 2005 and read forward. The journey of gender is never as clear-cut as we think it is.
I met Zoe several years ago. I called her Alan, and she was a husband and father at the time. If she reads this, hi Zoe!
Will comment more soon, because this topic really interests me, but I’m off to work.
I don’t know why some people are born male but are psychologically female. I don’t know why some guys like guys. I don’t know why I’m not attracted to guys. I don’t know why some women can earn a living having sex while others can barely stand the touch of one man.
But I know all these things are out there. I know that people have sex and gender feelings that are different from mine. And I know that a lot of people suffer abuse because others can’t deal with difference. And I do believe that fear is a part of it. I know it is with prostitution abolitionists. I suspect it is with the transgendered as well. Otherwise, why would anyone care?
Because there are those of us out here who are quite tired of this constant “revisionism”. If you start calling the color “blue” – “purple” – expect some “push back” from those of us who are perfectly fine with the current definition of “blue”. It has nothing to do with fear.
“Oh you’re fearful” … yeah … uhm – that’s a lazy argument just like …
“Transphobia” … “Homophobia” – these are BENT words and they’re being used incorrectly and to demonize someone who thinks that transexualism or homosexuality – is an abnormality – which both scientifically are. What’s wrong with being abnormal? I’m abnormal! My first real girlfriend – a hooker, used to tell me that most guys would get pretty irate if they knew other guys were “working” the woman they loved. It never bothered me – there’s a switch in me or something that isn’t like most men – I’M ABNORMAL – I’m GOOD with it! I don’t seek any validation by forcing anyone else to accept me as normal.
“Homosexual Marriage” – that’s another term I have a problem with. I have no problem with Homosexuals going through a marriage ceremony. I have no problem with them getting “married” – but don’t expect ME to redefine the meaning of “marriage” – which has meant – for a millennia – a union between a man and a woman. Get married – I’m not saying they can’t – but I’m not going to call it, or think of it as a “marriage” … a “union” … whatever – doesn’t make it any less significant in my view but it’s not a marriage any more than the color BLUE is PURPLE.
A male who’s had his penis and testicles cut off – is not a woman no matter how many times you inject him with estrogen. He is not a woman – he is something – “other”. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have a civil status equal to me and it doesn’t mean that I’m better than he is – it just simply means I’m not assigning him the sexual identity of a woman. I open doors for women … I have sex with women … I don’t do either with transsexuals.
And I will not be forced to.
And, apparently – I’m not the only one out here.
A person is born with male genitalia but feels strongly that they are female. Why should your uneasiness be her problem.
I opened the door for the fed-ex man today. Does that mean I’m a latent homosexual.
You’re the one defining her as a man. She’s not. I’m trying to think of a situation where just taking a trans woman’s word for it is going to result in harm, and I can’t. But I can definitely recognise the harm in actively opposing and denying the identity of others, based on what is ultimately _your own_, individual understanding of gender, which is flawed to begin with by the nature of you not being able to see into the minds of other people. I prefer to engage in the train of thought that leads to less harm, not more.
And – “I’m not the only one out here” is a logical fallacy. The proposition can’t be logically defined based on whether a lot of people think it or not. This is nothing more than an appeal to the majority. We already know there’s a lot of discrimination directed at trans folks – the fact that a lot of people discriminate doesn’t validate their discrimination.
Sasha – I’m sure he has a “warm” story but an emotional “journey” doesn’t change the fact that he is a CONSTRUCTED female – he is not a real female. If he reads this – I’m sorry, I’m not trying to “short” the guy or insult him. I’m no better than he is, I do not consider him to be my inferior – I do not wish him harm.
I just do not consider him a female.
Again – there’s a real simple test for the hetero guys out there – if you believe transexuals are truly women – then put your money where your mouth is and go have sex with one to prove it.
Also – it’s disturbing to me that people seem to make so little distinction between a “post-op” transsexual and a “pre-op”.
Not an emotional journey: a hormonal one.
There’s hetero guys that have made your case for you. Janet Mock, for one example, has a long-time boyfriend.
You’re WAAAY over thinking this. Look – it’s pretty simple, men have a “Y” chromosome … and women do not. In all the abnormalities I was able to research – every single one for men still included a Y chromosome and not a single chromosomal abnormality in women did.
So it’s pretty simple here really – because you can’t get rid of that “Y” chromosome.
Again – you’re projecting. What makes you think they feel “threatened”. Read Birchall’s article again, Doc – she’s not threatened – she “ridiculing”. She’s having a grand ole’ time making fun of the army of “chicks with dicks” that you guys are sending after her and her sisters.
And don’t think that neutral observers won’t take her side in this – because neutral observers won’t use the chaotic logic that you use above that basically EXCLUDES ANY WOMAN ALIVE from being able to claim “womanhood”.
What she says makes sense – though her point is damaged, I believe, in the language she uses. However, as I said – it’s the same with your point when you resort to nonsensical words such as “transphobia” or attempting to paint her as being “threatened” by transsexuals.
I’m taking her side – am I “threatened” by transsexuals? No – I am not. I am simply tired of this new-wave-good-time-rock-and-roller schtick that says we can simply WISHCAST and make things true that have never been true since the first human stood erect on this planet. If a man can change himself to a woman – then I should be able to jack up on MT-II and hit the tanning salon and change my race. What? You don’t believe me? Well, you know – it’s complicated Doc – see I do have a bit of African American in my heritage – but more importantly – I JUST FEEL BLACK – and always have. I listen to rap – I identify with the struggle. Why can’t I be black and …
Be given equal status with other blacks to argue what it is actually like to BE black?
There’s plenty of people who have Y chromosomes and aren’t Men. Like people who bail and don’t pay child support.
Right – because the term “child support” pre-dates the word “man”. LOL
You’re confusing the word “man” with the word “loser” – they are not the same (I know a lot of women think so though).
I just mean it’s kinda something you’re supposed to live up to, right. Not just be.
Child support ceased to be a moral obligation when carrying a child to term became optional after conception. Why should I pay for your choice?
The Rad Fems are threatened by just about anything that doesn’t fit their rather narrow worldview. They’re a lot like the more obnoxious sorts of Christian Fundamentalists that way, and made worse by the degree they are allowed to live in their little bubble-world.
I have nothing against the Transwomen themselves – except as individuals, possible – but I think that the surgeons who (to my mind) prey on them are human slime. I’m not sure one way or another about their head-doctors. My Lady and I have either been extraordinarily lucky in our therapists, or the notion that psychologists, psychotherapists, etc are creeps (which is common enough in the popular culture) is largely bushwa. My only complaint is that, as a class, medicating physicians are as bad at returning calls as plumbers.
I expect to live to see true gender-swaps. When that happens, I will be loud in the defense of any person who wants to try the other gender, or even change weekly. THAT will be their business, and none of mine.
Brooke, I suspect that radfems rarely comment on transmen because women, trans or not, are easy pickings. Because despite their stated goal of ending misogyny, they enthusiastically use it like a warhammer against those of us who they deem “enemy combatants” in the War of the Sexes/Gender Wars.
Having met Ms Bindel on a panel earlier this year I can confirm that her feelings are much as you describe. She is also violently anti science, something I blogged about at the time
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hive-mind/201308/short-word-about-pornography-good
Excellent blogpost.
The version I got is even better as one of the pics failed to load and there is a sentence that reads “This latter film maker appeared on BBCs flagship current Goat love affairs program, Newsnight last night discussing this issue and inspired this blog post”.
One criticism though.
The rate of reporting of non-sex crimes in the Czech Republic rose after the fall of communism. That is a very different thing to a proven change in the crime rate. Even if all crimes other than sex crimes had risen, it is a big leap to claim that increased access to pornography prevented a corresponding rise in sex crimes.
These philosophical discussions about male or female, as if there’s some Platonic Ideal out there, objective and abstract, are kinda dated aren’t they? It’s relativity now. I suppose gender is like distance or time, it’s about both the object and the observer.
That’s not so terrible is it. I don’t think everyone has to see someone the way they want to be seen, but I do hope that everyone finds someone who sees them in the way that makes them feel at home. That’s not just how physics works, but also love.
I’m all for making an effort to take people as they come. I’m just a little baffled by the idea that if you don’t like the body that God, or millions of years of evolution, or both, landed you with, putting yourself in the hands of some clown with an MD is going to solve matters in any really satisfactory way. Modern medicine does a fair job of halting disease and repairing damage. Maybe I’m strange, but most of the non-reconstructive cosmetic surgery I’ve seen strikes me as inartistic at best, and ranges all the way down to train-wreck territory.
Their bodies, their lives. I don’t want to stop them. I reserve the right, however, to think that the surgeons do not uphold much in the way of ethical standards.
The nick cohen comment (above) is a shocker. If the Guardian had the courage of its heralded convictions they’d just dump them.
Cohen writes for the Observer, which is very much a tabloid in the British red-top tradition even though it is the Sunday sister publication of the Guardian.
Cohen is regularly obnoxious to the point of hate speech and has been for decades.
Comment threads like this one are why I love this site. 🙂
Sticking my head above the parapet here may (or may not) be a mistake but it won’t be the first (nor, no doubt, the last).
As someone who believes that sunlight is the best disinfectant, I am always happy to see the like of Bindel, Burchill, Moore et al sounding off about trans-women as I prefer their bigotry to be in plain sight, not hidden away. The same goes for anyone who has issues about skin colour, sexuality, career choices etc. I consider it a handy guide as to who can safely be ignored.
Disclaimer: The original birth certificate had an ‘M’ on it; the new one won’t. As for what’s between my legs? That’s a matter for me, my doctor and anyone I choose to share my bed with.
It’s not a mistake. As with sex workers and gay people, stereotypes thrive in an atmosphere of ignorance. The more trans people come out, the more cis people will learn that they aren’t scary or criminal or dangerous or a sign of the downfall of Western civilization. And I’m sure everyone here will treat you with respect, even if they have difficulty understanding your situation or accepting your decisions. 🙂
It is a very positive development that neofeminists are being increasingly called out for their intolerant views. The fact is that they have to backtrack in order to save any credibility at all.
[…] Hooks and Melissa Harris-Perry – If you haven’t already seen this it is an absolute must watch. Dr Magnati – a blog by the forensic scientist who became famous as Belle de Jour, whose writing became TV show […]
[…] even protect the most vulnerable classes of women from violence. When Julie Bindel started attacking Sarah Brown last year for comparing her to Rick Santorum (in 2008!) when it comes to transphobia, […]
To me, this is the biggest problem I have with neofeminism. There are other problems, but this is the one that disgusts me the most. These people should be ashamed.
Krulac and the neofeminists are not in agreement. Oh, they are in the blurry sense: M to F transexual ≠ real woman. But they don’t agree on WHY she’s not a real woman, or what the consequences of not being a real woman should be.
Krulac’s argument is all about biology:
Y chromosome? check
Born with a dick? check
Well then: not a real woman.
The neofeminists don’t give a damn about biology, or they wouldn’t include sex workers in the list of people who are not real women. AFAIK, sex workers’ chromosomes are like anybody else’s.
Also, krulac makes it clear that he doesn’t consider the M to F transexual to be inferior or innately bad, while the neofeminists do. They consider them to be men, who are innately evil creatures. Just ask your local neofeminist, I’m sure she’ll be happy to confirm this. So there’s a lot of negative consequences to being not a real woman. The worst that will happen from krulac’s views on the subject is that he won’t hold the door open for you or have sex with you, and hey, there are other guys to bang with.
I’m reminded of the Christian fundamentalist* who, upon learning of the Big Bang theory of the universe, wrote an essay claiming that see, there’s no conflict between (his personal interpretation of) the Bible and science. The Bible says that the universe had a beginning, and now science says that the universe had a beginning. Perfect agreement! Everybody please convert now.
But of course there was still a lot of disagreement. His interpretation of Scripture finds that beginning to be a few thousand years ago, while science finds the universe to be at least twice as many billions of years old.
Krulac, please do let me know if I’ve got you wrong here, and note that I didn’t say a word about you feeling threatened or hating anybody. I’m willing to take your word on that because hey, you know better than I do if you feel threatened or if you feel hate.
* If there are any Christian fundamentalists here who do not share the POV of the example, then relax; I’m not talking about you.
[…] against the fictitious trans lobby. This is Brooke Magnanti on Bindel, Burchill etc in a guest post on Maggie McNeill’s […]