Over the past couple of days, we have seen a bit of an internet temper tantrum coming primarily from some in Britain, centering on some voices in the British commentariat, who are very upset about the fact that trans activists and allies have critiqued an unfortunate line in an article and rather blatantly transphobic comments on twitter by journalist Suzanne Moore (see for example my own previous comment about the issue here). Moore initially made an awkward, de-gendering reference to “Brazilian transsexuals” in her NewStatesman piece, followed by a blatantly transphobic tirade on twitter when gently approached about that odd line in the original article.
Let’s say something off the bat to put all of this in some context. The news media (as well as most every other media, in fact) has a long history of writing about trans people, and trans women in particular, in ways that are extremely sensationalistic, exploitative and ultimately damaging to our lives and livelihoods. These types of media tropes about trans women, habitually dehumanizing and de-gendering us through words, serve to stigmatize our bodies and our lives and therefore promote the discrimination, marginalization and violence that the vast majority of us have experienced quite commonly. I myself have experienced some measure of all of these, however trans women living at the intersections of racial oppression, poverty, and others tend to experience these even more dramatically than someone like myself with white privilege.
For examples of this type of media reporting in the U.S., consider a local TV report covering the murder of Coko Williams in a Detroit neighborhood back in April 2012. Coko had her throat slashed and was shot, yet the news story said little about the loss of human life, instead airing grievances of a neighborhood man who complained of street crime and finding trash on his lawn. When the loss of human life was alluded to towards the end of the interview, Coko’s name was never used and she was inappropriately referred to with male pronouns; further, another resident basically said she had the murder coming because she was trans. Finally, even when a queer website covered the murder, the picture included with the story featured a picture of trash from the first interviewee’s lawn rather than a picture of the woman who had been murdered.
Then there was the New York Times coverage of the passing of Lorena Escalera who died in a fire last May. The NYT story focused on details of her sex life and reported what amounted to rumors about surgery a neighbor believed she might have had. Of course, the NYT (or any reputable news source) would never report such sensationalized details after the passing of a cis woman (or probably anyone else, for that matter).
Meanwhile, as detailed by Trans Media Watch in its submission to the Leveson inquiry, elements of the British Press have shaped exploitative and damaging reporting about trans people almost to a twisted art form; this includes outing trans people regardless of any dangers they might face and publishing exploitative pieces about a trans child whose life and images were put on display in a sensationalized manner that invited public ridicule and abuse.
Then of course there are the endless array of plot lines of movies and shows such as CSI in which trans people, and trans women in particular, are presented as freaks or psychotic individuals, not to mention the sitcoms on which trans women are commonly presented as nothing more than a joke.
It is of course within this wider context of sensationalistic media coverage that most any comments about trans people in the press will be received. Therefore it is in this context that such comments must be viewed, including the line from Suzanne Moore’s original article:
“We are angry with ourselves for not being happier, not being loved properly and not having the ideal body shape – that of a Brazilian transsexual.”
As myself and many of my fellow trans activists have pointed out over the last few days, this final phrase is odd and alienating. As I pointed out earlier, it represents body-policing, and it’s anti-feminist. Although she has objected strenuously to this characterization of her words, the comments that Moore made on twitter when approached about the issue clearly revealed a much deeper prejudice about trans women and trans women’s bodies.
I’ve noticed that many of those who have attempted to defend or deflect criticism of Moore’s remarks have avoided acknowledging her comments on twitter, about trans women “cutting off their dicks” and such (for example, this piece). But these comments absolutely elucidate the bigoted perspective from which the original “Brazilian transsexuals” comment emerged. The fact that an Independent piece of Moore’s from 1997 uses similar language reveals that this is not simply an outburst of anger on twitter, but very likely reflective of a deeper and long-held stigmatized view of trans women and trans women’s bodies.
Nevertheless, it is evident from the reaction of more than a few voices across the web (just see the stubborn comments on my previous blog post for a quick example) that at least a good chunk of the British commentariat has decided to close ranks around Moore and largely dismiss any meaningful criticism of her whatsoever.
Also let me take a moment here to critique pieces such as the piece I linked above, which basically represent a cop-out: the author of this piece suggests that trans activists are somehow uniquely aggressive or extremist, and because of this difference from other kinds of activists the author suggests that they will simply refrain from discussing trans issues in the future. Of course, the alternative route would be much simpler: when trans activists or allies approach you about something you wrote, listen to what they have to say, consider their views, and move forward from there. I fail to comprehend why that is such a challenging approach to take (unless you view trans activists as some special form of unapproachable or unintelligible human being… which would be totally bigoted).
But regardless, a piece was published today appearing on the Guardian website from Julie Burchill– a close friend of Suzanne Moore– that renders much of the questions about intent raised above rather moot. I won’t link to the piece, in part because I suspect that it was posted with the desire of generating massive page hits by creating crude controversy, but simply put it is breathtaking in the sheer vitriolic hatred expressed towards trans women, referring to us unflinchingly with slurs “tr*nn**s, sh*m***s, sh*m,” etc., and ending with what seems to be a direct threat.
A threat of what, or whether it should be taken seriously, I don’t know, but there is no question that the words written on that page represent pure unbridled hatred.
And make no mistake about it: we trans women already know damn well this is the way these individuals talk about us behind the scenes. I have no doubt that when the subject of trans women comes up around Burchill, Moore and their pals that these are the kind of words bandied about, fitting right in amongst the casual laughter, lobster and sips of champagne that Burchill references in her article.
In an odd way, I can respect Burchill for one thing: she’s not afraid to acknowledge what’s really on her mind: “I fucking hate these tr*****s and I don’t give a shit what anyone thinks.” In fact, perhaps Moore could learn something from this honest approach rather than childishly alternating comments about trans women’s “mutilated bodies” with laughable claims that she doesn’t actually hate trans women cause she wanted to shag David Bowie (however that’s supposed to be relevant).
But now let’s pause here for a moment and reflect on the full implications of the precise form of bigotry that these women are expressing: trans-misogyny. Perhaps some readers have heard that word before but not been sure exactly what it means. Trans-misogyny can be thought of as a particular form of misogyny that is primarily directed at a certain grouping of women: in this case, trans women.
I say primarily directed at trans women here because there are examples of trans-misogny being turned on cis women as well (e.g. male liberal commentators such as Keith Olbermann making fun of Ann Coulter by calling her a “tr***y,” which should be totally unacceptable).
More specifically, we can think of trans-misogyny as inhabiting the intersections of transphobic and misogynistic oppressions. However, the key here is to understand that what underlies trans-misogyny is simply misogyny itself: the social illness that is the hatred of women and womanhood (that in part explains why trans-misogyny could be directed at a non-trans woman).
To dig a little deeper at this concept, consider the words that Burchill has used to describe trans women (I’ll use the un-starred versions of these words here just to be absolutely precise with my meaning). “Shemale.” “Shim.” “Tranny.” Notice that all of the worst transphobic slurs are reserved for people who were socially assigned ‘male’ at birth but today live as women? That’s not a coincidence. As society has trained itself deeply in the hatred and imagined ‘weakness’ of womanhood, it often views the transition from male birth assignment to female social placement very differently than the converse process. Both sides of course experience transphobia, and trans men often have a history of dealing with misogyny associated with their birth gender assignment, but trans-misogyny is principally directed at trans women.
And exactly how this plays out for trans women can be pretty devastating. The fact is that trans women constitute a tiny portion of the general population, yet experience an astronomically high murder rate. Statistics aren’t always easy to come by, but even among the general LGBTI population (of which we still only constitute a fraction) trans women account for about half the hate crimes committed every year in the U.S.
Yet still this intersectional analysis is incomplete, because it must be noted that the vast majority of those trans women who are murdered each year are trans women of color and trans women sex workers (or both).
What’s more, society’s script for excusing or dismissing violence (including sexual violence) against trans women runs right through the script that it uses to excuse such violence against cis women– and then some. In general terms, recall the recent disgustingly casual conversations held about rape in Steubenville as an example of how violence against women is often considered… well, casual. Then of course there are the familiar victim-blaming narratives that asks of a woman who is assaulted, “Well, what was she wearing?”
For trans women, the standard narratives apply in a similar manner, but there are a few extra twists. Principally, there is the victim-blaming disclosure myth, which is used to justify violence against trans women with the ever-so-casual, “He didn’t know she was trans… yeah, of course he’s going to knock her out,” spoken often times even when the man who committed violence knew she was trans all along.
And so we see, this is what is so fundamentally wrong and disappointing with the “feminist” narratives that second-wave genital-essentialist feminists like Moore and Burchill espouse. Because you can’t dismiss trans-misogyny without ultimately limiting your critique of misogyny itself. So dismissing trans-misogyny turns out to be just that: dismissing misogyny. As an example, there is a 2001 Guardian article by Burchill “Gender Bending” (sorry, I just don’t feel like linking to the Guardian today) which contains this trans-misogynist sentence about some drag queens in a Theatre Royal production:
“The best reason for their continuing existence is that they demonstrate how very stupid men look, in fact, when they dress up as women.”
Notice the implicit woman hatred in that sentence? Do women “look stupid” when they wear jeans (even men’s jeans)? Then why would men look stupid in the attire generally associated with women?
Beyond that, there are of course the victim-blaming narratives that are not merely overlooked or excused by the feminism practiced by Moore and Burchill, but are actually invented by it. In the previously mentioned “Gender Bending” article, Burchill writes:
“My objection to trannies, though, is that they are woefully conventional souls … who seem unable to exist alongside any sort of ambiguity, which as we all know is one of the things that makes life so interesting. …
It is the literal-mindedness, the clunky logic of transsexuals, that is so appalling (that, and their taste in blouses)… . They are frilly, docile smilers who always wear make-up and never the trousers. Their idea of womanhood seems to have survived intact from 1953.”
Similarly, in Suzanne Moore’s dishonestly-titled “I don’t care if you were born a woman or became one” she writes a slightly less accusatory version of this regarding the “transsexuals” she knew in college:
“Others I knew had sex changes. Or transitioning, as it is now called. Mostly this seemed to be an obsession with secondary sexual characteristics: peeing sitting down if they had been a man, wearing horrible lumberjack shirts and refusing to wash up if they had been a woman. The radical fluidity of gender vaporised. Some trans people appeared to reinforce every gender stereotype going.”
In either case, both of these feminists claim that trans women reinforce (or at least seem to reinforce) the gender binary. Of course, the extent to which there is some truth in this is principally a reflection of the medical profession imposing such required gender conformity on trans women (and trans people more generally, though trans women always seem to be more heavily policed in this regard) as a condition for obtaining treatment.
But anyways, here on planet earth I’m a trans woman and, in contradiction to Ms. Burchill’s claims, I wear jeans almost every day, and very rarely wear any more make-up than mascara and perhaps eyeliner. And in fact, my trans women friends run the gamut from from butch, to soft butch to high femme and everything in between or beyond those categories.
So why do Moore and Burchill and other second-wave type feminists wish to assign blame to myself and other trans women for “propping up” the gender binary? And what do you call someone who concludes that every member of a certain group (in this case, trans women) are all the same, despite the available evidence to the contrary?
Regardless, I would now like to offer a strong word of caution to my trans woman sisters and our allies regarding this moment, in the aftermath of Guardian publishing what amounts to hate speech against trans women under its masthead. I hope that everyone will understand that the publication of this column does not represent any kind of victory for the trans woman-hating branches of antiquated faux feminism.
On the contrary, it is an act of desperation, representing a mode of political thought that is gradually losing touch and becoming lost in useless anger as it grows increasingly irrelevant. Moore and Burchill allude to their long left-behind working class origins in an attempt to preserve a sense of authenticity, but they increasingly lose touch with the intersectional needs of feminism today, which it must be uphold if it is to have any change of providing a meaningful discourse of liberation for even most of the women living in this world.
With this picture in mind, I would suggest that the primary motivation of this and other faux-feminist attacks on trans women is an attempt to goad us to saying something stupid or anti-woman in response. Hence, I would urge my sisters Don’t take the bait! Do not respond to these women with the vitriol or hate that they have demonstrated for us. Particularly do not allow yourselves to fall into the trap of using anti-woman language against them. (Edit: even though they used such language against us in the first place.)
Remember that anti-woman language, no matter who it is directed at, ultimately serves the goals of patriarchy and hurts ALL women.
And yes, even as Moore herself did correctly acknowledge, anger in the face of oppression is sometimes justified. But there is a difference between righteous anger, cool and narrowly focused on dismantling patriarchy, and the crude anger from which these clowns in feminist drag speak and would wish to see us speak.
Their goal is not to bring the feminist movement forward, but rather to desperately attempt to convince feminism that they and their ideas are still somehow relevant to women today. And they are willing to push that goal forward, even if it means women turning on each other.
Feminism is too important for that, and too desperately needed for trans woman and cis woman alike in these difficult times, when it seems that we are being abandoned at all corners of the political map.
Unite Sisters!
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 13, 2013 at 4:10 pm
tambrosia
❤
January 13, 2013 at 4:11 pm
tambrosia
Reblogged this on tambrosia.
January 13, 2013 at 4:33 pm
Judy Olsen
This feels like a bad time to be a middle-aged middle-class straight white woman feminist. I think the Burchill article underlines my point that these are career feminists, whose incomes come from providing nod-along analysis of women’s issues. I don’t doubt that Moore has personal qualities that make her a good friend but that won’t be much comfort to the trans people who have been hurt and upset by what she said. And it IS up to trans people to determine whether offence was caused, not anyone else. Ditto, it’s ultimately up to individuals to determine where they are on the gender spectrum. So yeah, this is all fundamental to what I thought I understood as feminism, and I would have thought that Moore was on the same page, but it seems not. And as others have said, that feels bad.
January 13, 2013 at 6:30 pm
Andrew
You still don’t get it., and in fact the arrogance of thinking you can define what feminism is & who is a feminist through the use of self chosen language, and when someone fall foul of that language then accuse them of far greater crimes and of being ‘faux feminists’ (who are you to decide) is gob smacking.
It’s also funny seeing someone refer to ‘career feminists’, as that’s exactly what the cul de sac of obscurist academic identity politics appears to be to outsiders.
Whilst ‘offence’ and worse self defined ‘offence’ is somehow seen as an horrendous crime which is then used to try and shut down and control debate, the left is screwed. This goes for religious politics as much as gender politics.
Actually I’m ‘offended’ by the idea that if I don’t buy into this divisionary nonsense that I’m on the ‘side of patriarchy’.
But then sadly, we’re a long long way from people getting that they’re making themselves a political irrelevance, alienating people with which they have common cause, and are coming across as increasingly reactionary & intolerant.
January 13, 2013 at 7:13 pm
Tim Chevalier
“we’re a long long way from people getting that they’re making themselves a political irrelevance, alienating people with which they have common cause, and are coming across as increasingly reactionary & intolerant.”
Oh, the irony.
January 13, 2013 at 10:14 pm
leftytgirl
This isn’t about “offense” at all, that’s just you trying to change the subject. In fact, the word offense doesn’t appear anywhere in my article– for good reason.
Rather, this is about anti-oppression. This is about acknowledging the system of patriarchy that targets ALL women, cis and trans alike, and putting forward the strongest challenge possible to that system. It is also about acknowledging the sad fact that there is a history of feminism, principally the second wave political ideologies developed in the 70’s and 80’s, being used in a manner that narrowly benefits white, cis women at the expense of trans women, women of color and others.
If you can’t acknowledge the need to develop liberationist structures that can fight for the rights and needs of all women, then I simply cannot understand where you are coming from or what your political goals actually are. If you oppose feminism that can speak for all women, then please describe what type of feminism is it to which you subscribe?
“You still don’t get it., and in fact the arrogance of thinking you can define what feminism is & who is a feminist through the use of self chosen language, and when someone fall foul of that language then accuse them of far greater crimes and of being ‘faux feminists’ (who are you to decide) is gob smacking.”
But that’s what feminism is in the first place. It is women speaking out for ourselves, using a language created by women to state our viewpoints in our own terms as a means of rejecting the perspective of patriarchy that we are all forced to internalize from a very young age. And yes, there are oppressions that are unique to trans women that must be articulated as well, hence the need for us to develop language that is specific to our situation to go along with the rest.
This is our contribution to feminism. In part, it is our way of helping feminism to move forward past the hopelessly misguided genital/sex-essentialist crap that was mainstream in feminism from that earlier period. Many women (cis and trans) have already seen that stuff just leads to a dead end and have gone on to look for new solutions. Again, from this vantage point, trans women are in a unique position to offer new ideas and views in the challenge to patriarchal power structures, including those that have been internalized, sadly, by some mainstream feminists.
And just FTR, if someone is “offended” by something I have written here, especially you, I probably don’t give a shit. On a related point, you’re a man trying to tell me what feminism means, and you can’t even acknowledge that in your comments? Or at the very least, you can’t even acknowledge the blatant hate speech tirade that was directed against trans women yesterday, published in a mainstream print journal?
January 13, 2013 at 9:43 pm
Carolyn C Gray
I think you’ve made a number of important points here, from the sense of flailing desperation given off by this handful of feminists-turned-reactionaries, to the dishonesty and seemingly deliberate mischaracterization they employ in constructing their arguments.
And it’s astonishing, their rank hypocrisy. Do they really not see that they exactly resemble everything they claim to hate? That they perpetuate real, tangible harm to trans women, the very sort of harm they claim to oppose?
Maybe they don’t see. Their arguments and attitudes reek of privilege of various sorts, and privilege certainly has a way of leading us all to overlook our own shortcomings. Still, you’d think they’d have the sense to read their own copy before pressing ‘send.’ Moore, Burchill… I thought they were seasoned pros at this sort of thing, with enough insight to examine their own rhetoric for flaws, inconsistencies, vulnerability to critique, et cetera.
I mean, “bullying,” really? Is this really the angle they want to run with with after (or even as) they fling insults and abuse at such a vulnerable group? That’s just… absurd. Laughably, transparently absurd.
And maybe that’s the source of their discomfort. Maybe they recognize that they render themselves ridiculous, by failing to grow and change even as feminism itself has grown and changed. So they react by finding someone else to ridicule, someone weaker. Or so they thought.
Because, it turns out, trans women as a group are not the weak and powerless target we once might have been. What Burchill, for example, calls a “lobby” is actually simply a community, thriving with a shared sense of purpose. Employing new means of communication, such as social media. And building on the real and valuable accomplishments of previous generations of activists, advocates and, yes, feminists. Whether some of them like it or not.
Their discomfort is nothing compared to the measurable, tangible harm to trans women caused by the very systems feminism, among other movements, has opposed all along. So this is not about their egos and sensibilities, much as they’d like to steer the discussion that way. It’s not about our “identity politics,” whatever that discussion-derailing term actually means. And it’s certainly not about cabals and conspiracies, mobs and ivory towers.
It’s about the well-being (and, too often, the literal life and death) of real women leading real lives, trans women included. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?
January 13, 2013 at 10:54 pm
www.stefonknee.com
2013? How far have we really progressed. As a community we watch helplessly as most of us become isolated and oppressed by family, friend and foe (media/society). As more of us die by murder or suicide, and more try to live stealth, there are fewer left to create positive change. It is when we could use the support and experience of every feminists that we find out who our real friends are. I have never felt more isolated and alone. I honestly don’t understand why we still try. I must be insane to look to our future when all is lost and hope is gone, not just for our trans community or others that are marginalized, rather for all humanity. Those with power know how to divide and conquer, look around… they use all forms of influence, not just the media to maintain control. 😦 Very sad, ((((hugs)))) Stef
January 22, 2013 at 12:46 pm
leftytgirl
Hi Stef, sorry somehow I missed this comment as everything was coming in so quickly at one point… sorry to hear you are feeling isolated, I hope you can find someone to talk to at W+T or maybe the 519. Keep your head up as high as you can and try not to let these stupid debates in the media get to you, they actually aren’t *that* important in the long run. And many allies have come to our side in this event in the end.
I miss Toronto a lot, maybe we will run into each other whenever get a chance to return… hugs, Savvy
January 13, 2013 at 11:41 pm
Cait
Reblogged this on Cait.
January 14, 2013 at 1:03 am
Alison
I am not a trans woman, I am not involved with the trans community. I am white, cis, a mother: by all accounts, according to Burchill, a “natural born woman”. I am also a feminist. And all I can say is that the kind of bigotry I see in Burchill (and in other transphobic feminists) upsets and horrifies me, because it goes against everything I believe feminism to be about. I actually don’t understand it. I don’t get how anyone who believes in justice or equality or even simple decency can hold those exclusionary attitudes. I can only speak for myself, but the swathe of comments under Burchill’s article suggest that I am not alone.
January 14, 2013 at 7:14 am
pasupatidasi
going to link to this post…or is it called reblogging. as mother to an incredible almost 10 year old transgender woman-child it is discouraging that folk who deem themselves to be ‘pro-women’ and ‘feminists’ dare exclude from the conversation about ‘raising power’ against the patriarchal misogynist paradigm people like my daughter!
January 14, 2013 at 7:16 am
pasupatidasi
Reblogged this on Pasupatidasi's Blog.
January 14, 2013 at 4:24 pm
K
I’m curious as to why you feel the need to caution your trans sisters against taking ‘the bait’ and falling ‘into the trap’ of responding to Burchill and co with ‘anti woman’ language. Earlier in your article, in reference to the discussed transphobic language you offer that ‘trans women already know damn well this is the way these individuals talk about us behind the scenes’. Your caution against responding with ‘anti woman’ language leads me to wonder if it is your experience that ‘anti woman’ language may sometimes be employed by some in the trans community ‘behind the scenes’. I’m also intrigued by your suggestion that Burchill and co are deliberately seeking to provoke the use of ‘anti woman’ language’, the logic of which suggest that were they in fact to be subject to such abuse then it would be their responsibility rather than that of the abusers.
January 14, 2013 at 7:46 pm
leftytgirl
Nice try.
There is a long history of second wave feminist types attempting to kick trans women out of women spaces by any means necessary, and in the last couple of years in particular, a lot of online targeting trans women (outing their personal info, making ridiculous accusations, attempting to defame them via google searches, etc.). And yes, that has followed a pattern of spouting abusive language to incite hateful dialogue, then using the response to say “Oh, look these trans women really are horrible!” while never acknowledging their own use of anti-woman language in the first place.
My experience with anti-woman language is that it is used quite commonly by virtually everyone in society: cis men, trans men, cis women and trans women as well. So I do my best to call it out no matter who uses it. And in my experience, trans women are no more likely to engage in that than cis women.
Finally, you might want to know that your comment here would probably come across as less disingenuous had you actually bothered to condemn Moore and Burchill’s own anti-woman language (at the very least, the outright hate speech and threats from Burchill). Trans women face incredible discrimination when it comes to employment, housing, medical care, etc., and on top of that, are more likely to face gendered violence than anybody. If you aren’t capable of at least pretending to empathize with the very difficult situation in which many trans women are placed, you probably aren’t in a good position to judge their actions.
January 21, 2013 at 12:26 pm
The Burchill/Moore saga continues… | Hel Gurney
[…] Lefty T-Girl – ‘refusing the call: a trans woman rejects internecine war cry from anti-woman faux feminists&#… […]
January 22, 2013 at 7:03 am
Moore, Burchill and the Web – A Timeline « Trans Media Action Blog
[…] Leftytgirl blogs “refusing the call: a trans woman rejects internecine war cry from anti-woman faux feminists&#… […]
February 4, 2013 at 8:04 am
a trans feminist condemnation of rape comments directed at suzanne moore « leftytgirl
[…] status is reducing herself when she begins living socially as a woman. And that is used to justify using slurs like “tranny” and “shemale” against certain women (mostly trans women, but sometimes cis women as well). It is also used as a justification or […]
February 28, 2013 at 7:18 am
Crista
Wah! Cry me a river! You mess with the bull then you’re going to get the horns…
End of story.
February 28, 2013 at 7:27 am
leftytgirl
I have no idea what that means. Not that I necessarily care.