How on earth do they write a piece like this without seeing that exactly the same argument can be levelled at every single man who claims to be a woman? What is going on? Is it because people are more scared of men than they are of women like Krug and Dolezal?
The Guardian has been at this for so long! I just looked back and found the first thing I ever wrote online about trans (over four years ago!) -- I took a Guardian article about transracialism and swapped out all the references to race for gender:
I had to stop reading it a few years ago, heartbreaking really. Used to be a good paper, or was it?.. maybe I didn’t see it before. Maybe they’ve always just espoused the ‘progressive’ causes and for me (mid 90’s to late 2010’s) those causes didn’t involve steamrolling over womens rights, until now.
I don’t know. Someone said to me recently ‘ah look sure ye get more right wing as ye get older’ but I don’t think it’s that, cos I think-and though I never thought I’d say it-there’s faaaar more misogynists and outright women *haters* on the left than right now. And The Guardian has NO time for women. And all the time in the world for men.
Well, Marstrina said what I’ve believed for a long time: the reason why transracialism is seen as illegitimate, unlike transgenderism, is that some men stand to lose a lot, should it be accepted (for example, a Black man could lose a scholarship to a white man, who identifies as Black). Transmen don’t really threaten men in the same way - as has been said before they are mainly in the papers when they give birth, while trans women get all sorts of lucrative opportunities. Also, transracialism is interpreted through Critical Race Theory, while gender identity - Queer Theory.
The video was somewhat of a plus, but not spot on. He still doesn't quite get what this is all about. Read Marilyn Frye's 1983 book "The Politics of Reality: Essays in feminist theory. Not on transgenderism but on the relationship of gay men to lesbians and women, specifically the chapter Lesbian Feminism and the Gay Rights Movement: Another View of Male Supremacy, Another Separatism." She is negative but on the whole I think it is warranted. I think her book is helpful in analyzing what is going on. But with any such blanket analysis we must always take into account the individual human being, whether straight, lesbian, or gay in deciding intent and I am sure she understood this at the time of writing. I bet her writings can now be found on line for free.
Guardian was the last straw that broke the MSM back. Worse than the Murdoch trash. Not I went off it even before this misogynistic bullshit. I now believe that for-profit journalism is an oxymoron. I feel bad for all those great journalists who have to work in the for-profit media, but fuck them. They’re part of the fucking problem. What we need is Wikipedia type news service.
The Guardian has been at this for so long! I just looked back and found the first thing I ever wrote online about trans (over four years ago!) -- I took a Guardian article about transracialism and swapped out all the references to race for gender:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2016/guest-post-when-you-take-some-of-the-arguments-about-race-and-reword-them-for-gender/
I had to stop reading it a few years ago, heartbreaking really. Used to be a good paper, or was it?.. maybe I didn’t see it before. Maybe they’ve always just espoused the ‘progressive’ causes and for me (mid 90’s to late 2010’s) those causes didn’t involve steamrolling over womens rights, until now.
I don’t know. Someone said to me recently ‘ah look sure ye get more right wing as ye get older’ but I don’t think it’s that, cos I think-and though I never thought I’d say it-there’s faaaar more misogynists and outright women *haters* on the left than right now. And The Guardian has NO time for women. And all the time in the world for men.
There are some traps to avoid here. See Tuvel's Hypatia experience for deets. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html
Well, Marstrina said what I’ve believed for a long time: the reason why transracialism is seen as illegitimate, unlike transgenderism, is that some men stand to lose a lot, should it be accepted (for example, a Black man could lose a scholarship to a white man, who identifies as Black). Transmen don’t really threaten men in the same way - as has been said before they are mainly in the papers when they give birth, while trans women get all sorts of lucrative opportunities. Also, transracialism is interpreted through Critical Race Theory, while gender identity - Queer Theory.
The video was somewhat of a plus, but not spot on. He still doesn't quite get what this is all about. Read Marilyn Frye's 1983 book "The Politics of Reality: Essays in feminist theory. Not on transgenderism but on the relationship of gay men to lesbians and women, specifically the chapter Lesbian Feminism and the Gay Rights Movement: Another View of Male Supremacy, Another Separatism." She is negative but on the whole I think it is warranted. I think her book is helpful in analyzing what is going on. But with any such blanket analysis we must always take into account the individual human being, whether straight, lesbian, or gay in deciding intent and I am sure she understood this at the time of writing. I bet her writings can now be found on line for free.
Guardian was the last straw that broke the MSM back. Worse than the Murdoch trash. Not I went off it even before this misogynistic bullshit. I now believe that for-profit journalism is an oxymoron. I feel bad for all those great journalists who have to work in the for-profit media, but fuck them. They’re part of the fucking problem. What we need is Wikipedia type news service.