In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

One Alabama lawmaker proposes just getting the courts out of the marriage business

With Alabama’s recent, brief, chaotic attempt at marriage equality in mind, Republican Sen. Greg Albritton has proposed Senate Bill 377 to “bring order out of chaos,” he says. Under the proposed law, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in April, the probate’s office would no longer issue marriage licenses — in fact, couples wouldn’t need licenses at all to get married.

You’re a lesbian? Prove it.

TRIGGER WARNING: VIOLENT HOMOPHOBIA, XENOPHOBIA, PROBABLY RACISM

That’s what you have to do if you’re seeking asylum in the UK. Perhaps your family and your partner of 20 years have been killed. Perhaps you’re sentenced to stoning in your country of origin. Perhaps you jump through the necessary hoops and produce private, personal photographs and even a video of your sexual activities.

Is that good enough? Have you proven you’re a lesbian yet?

Apparently not to the government prosecutors of the UK.

Maybe you foolishly took measures to try and save your own life in Nigeria–tried to live undercover, married a man, even had kids (I mean, everybody knows lesbians can’t have kids, right? And real lesbians have never dated a man ever in their lives. Hey, maybe if you just explained you were bisexual, that sentence of stoning would be commuted!). Maybe you made the, um, “mistake” of “looking feminine” in Nigeria, either because you were femme or because you didn’t want to be killed. (Everybody knows lesbians never look feminine, right?)

A judge is ruling on Aderonke Apata’s case in weeks.

In my opinion, this is about the intersection of misogyny, homophobia, heterosexism (ever had a penis in your vagina? that penis is so powerful that it makes you straight no matter what else you’ve experienced.), anti-immigration sentiment, and yes, racism. It’s about the devaluing of a woman’s life, the dismissal of her trauma and of her identity because her lesbian experience doesn’t conform to some prosecutorial ideal, because she’s black, and because she’s an immigrant. Apata’s lesbianism is on trial, and 10 bucks says it’s not other lesbians who are ruling on it. (That wouldn’t make it OK, but there’s something particularly grotesque about a bunch of straight people sitting around passing judgment on whether or not somebody is a “real” lesbian and deciding that she doesn’t measure up to their bigoted white-centered stereotypes.)

Asylum for Aderonke Facebook page.

UK taxes are paying for these insults, just as my taxes go to the right-wing’s faith-based initiatives here in the US and the racist war on drugs and suchlike. And yet forced-birthers whine that they shouldn’t have to fund abortion because they “morally object” to it. Well, I morally object to any number of things in my own country, and what the UK is doing to Apata.

Breaking: charges in the murder of Islan Nettles

TRIGGER WARNING: VIOLENCE AGAINST TRANS WOMEN

James Dixon has been charged with manslaughter in the 2013 murder of Islan Nettles, a young black trans woman in NYC. He is pleading not guilty. The crime is not being charged as a hate crime because the police say they cannot tell what was said before Dixon beat Nettles to death, but no motive beyond transmisogyny transmisogynoir has been suggested.

Insofar as one can be pleased about anything in this situation, I am glad that Nettles’s death was not allowed to pass unnoticed and ignored by the city, and I am glad to say that the linked NYT article genders her correctly, although it refers to her gender identity as her “sexual orientation.” It is unclear to me whether this is a result of ignorance, a mistake, or because “sexual orientation” is included as a protected category in NY’s hate crimes law and gender identity is not, though gender is.

I don’t have anything analytical to say about this, but I remember how upsetting this murder was to many of us here, and I wanted to update the community.

Trans women and the future

CONTENT NOTE: VIOLENCE AGAINST TRANS WOMEN; DISCUSSION OF RAPE

This article, by Kai Cheng Tom, is a moving and beautifully written piece about what it means to be a young trans woman of color and to read over and over again about the violent death of women like you.

I have argued for years that male rape of women is a terrorist act, reminding all women what men can do to us, how vulnerable we are, how we have no way to exist in safety in this world. That the knock-on effects of one woman’s rape extends to her family and friends (if she feels comfortable enough to share the story) and beyond, if the news media picks it up. I do not mean to imply by this that survivors of rape should keep quiet or that rape should not be reported in the news. The problem is not knowledge. The problem is rape.

I gave up an extra unpaid job writing for a local Queens newspaper more than fifteen years ago because I was having to cover community board meetings etc. that took place in the evening, and thus had to take the G train back home to Brooklyn late at night. The G train ran seldom and was usually empty, and this was just the time that a man dubbed by the local news as “the G-train rapist” was operating. So much for a career in journalism.

Edit: I think this kind of unremitting, unrelenting violence against trans women is also terrorism. Look at the effects on the trans women who are not its direct victims. Look at the way Kai Cheng Tom has to live in fear, how hard it becomes to envision a future free of that violence and the fear of it. I felt something that I think is a little similar when I was 18 and I started to find out how many of my friends had been raped: I started to think that being raped was inevitable. But as a cis white woman, I had many more resources for support, ways to help me move past that feeling.

And at least I could give up that job–women who had paid jobs late at night on the G line couldn’t. And what are trans women supposed to do? Stop being?

Trans women need a future. They deserve a future. So what I’m posting here is a link to a piece on trans people over 50. Some transitioned later, some earlier. But they’re still here, still living, still making lives and happiness. If we are all lucky, this is what the future looks like.

Edited because I lost the thread originally and forgot to make the parallel between rape of cis women and transmisogynist violence that I was trying to create clear. Sorry about that. That’s what I get for composing directly on-site instead of drafting.

Criminalizing trans people

So, a Florida state representative, Frank Artiles, has introduced a bill to criminalize somebody using any bathroom or changing room or locker room but the one corresponding to that person’s assigned sex at birth. It doesn’t matter how they’re presenting, how they identify, whether they’ve had surgery, whether they’ve had their sex legally changed (as far as I’m concerned, only one of these should matter, and it’s the second one)–you follow your birth certificate or you are subject to a year in jail and a $1000 fine.

Such a bill would do nothing but turn trans people into criminals simply for living their lives like we all do, and, it is specified, leave them and facility owners vulnerable to civil suits that could be brought by anybody “lawfully” in a single-sex facility.

And what’s the reason? Well, to keep the poor little cis ladies safe, of course: to reduce “the potential for crimes against individuals using those facilities, including, but not limited to, assault, battery, molestation, rape, voyeurism, and exhibitionism,” or, in Artiles’s example, to prevent cis men from going into women’s bathrooms to be voyeurs. Artiles admits that this is not actually a thing that has happened, but you never know. I’m not sure what Artiles’s record is on violence against cis women in general, but he’s clearly willing to, at best, accept trans people as collateral damage in his effort to combat an imaginary scourge. Speaking as a cis woman who worries quite a bit I have to say that this particular danger has never leapt to my mind as a priority to worry about.

If one were really worried about cis men harassing cis women in bathrooms, I just want to point out, one could draft really pointed anti-harassment legislation that would cover voyeurism.

There’s also the issue of how anybody would enforce this bit of legislation. Would people be asked to drop their pants for inspection at the door of every restroom? Carry around birth certificates? Would cis mothers of small cis boys be forced to send their kids into the men’s room alone lest they taint the sanctity of the ladies’ room with a tiny penis? I can’t help but think that these issues alone will make sure the bill won’t pass and that Artiles is showboating, but that does not lessen the transphobia he is advocating and using, and he ought to be ashamed of himself.

For Angel H: Boy, Snow, Bird by Helen Oyeyemi

A little while ago, I mentioned that I was reading Helen Oyeyemi’s Boy, Snow, Bird, on an open thread, a really interesting retelling of the Snow White fairy tale by a Nigerian-British novelist that engages issues of race in a way that very few fairy-tale retellings do (“The Glass Bottle Trick” by Nalo Hopkinson is a notable exception, and I know there are others).  Angel H. posted and noted that she had read reviews saying the novel was transphobic–I was confused, because I was halfway through the book and there didn’t seem to be any trans-relevant content at all, but I promised that I would respond when I was done.

The thing is, there is no way for me to talk about this book with respect to race or trans-ness, without giving away some major spoilers, so please only read past the jump cut if you’re OK with that.

OK?

Spoilers, I really mean it.

OK, here we go.

I really love about 90% of this book, and then, to my mind, it all falls apart in the final chapter, which is, not coincidentally, where there is a big trans-related revelation.  I’m not a fan of flinging in some major “surprise, so-and-so is trans!” as a plot twist at the end without any prior or subsequent consideration of what that means in general, and I really think it’s not only unearned here, but doesn’t do what Oyeyemi thinks it does (or so I assume–I assume from the fact that it’s in the final chapter and seems to trigger some kind of reconciliation among Boy, the stepmother, Snow, the stepdaughter, and Bird, Boy’s daughter and Snow’s sister, that it’s meant to explain some emotional issues, open up the potential for a new chapter in their lives, generally be a kind of resolution, and I think it fails utterly).  I definitely think it’s an artistic failure.

And yeah, I can see how it’s transphobic as well.  For me, the transphobia is less glaring than the artistic failure, no doubt in large part due to cis privilege and in small part due to the fact that I just don’t buy the revelation, don’t see it as relevant to the story, and on a fundamental level think it’s kind of bullshit, so it’s hard for me to see it as a real thing.

Let me give you a spoiler-iffic rundown.  In 1953 or so, at 18, Boy Novak runs away from her very, very abusive ratcatcher father,  on the Lower East Side of Manhattan (they’re not Jewish, but he is Hungarian) and winds up in a New England town.  There she stays in a boarding house for a while and does various odd jobs, making friends and doing odd jobs.  She meets Arturo, a local jewelry-maker, and after a beautifully drawn series of interactions, marries him, although she does not know if she loves him.  She does love his 7-year-old daughter, Snow.  Snow is preternaturally beautiful and angelic, and is the darling of her three grandparents, who live next door.  After a year or so, Boy gives birth to a daughter who is very clearly of black descent, and it comes out that Arturo’s family has been passing for white, and is so committed to doing so that his parents disowned a daughter who could not pass and sent her away (it annoys me that we don’t find this out until about a third of the way through the book, and I think it is supposed to be a revelation, but the American edition gives this plot point away in the blurb).  It also becomes clear that part of the reason for the grandparents’ adoration of Snow is that she can pass almost perfectly.  After the birth of her daughter, Boy begins to resent Snow and the love her grandparents have for her, as their internalized racism cause them to reject their other granddaughter, who cannot pass.  Boy sends Snow away to Boston to live with her aunt, the disowned daughter, and uncle, transforming her childhood utterly.

Snow is deeply hurt–she had adored Boy, thinking of her as a fairy-tale princess and doesn’t understand why she’s been sent away from her stepmother, her beloved father, the sister she loves, and her adoring grandparents.  Eventually she and Bird get back in touch when Bird is around 10, and Snow, along with the aunt and uncle, Clara and John, come home for Thanksgiving.

During their visit, Frank stalks Boy and Bird, corners Bird, and coerces her into having lunch with him.  He is appalled to learn that this black child is Boy’s daughter, tells her that her mother is “evil” (Boy is certainly fucked up, but no, not evil), and is run out of town by Arturo, who knows all about his abuse and is having none of it, thank you very much.

In the final chapter, Mia, a friend of Boy’s from the boarding house, who has become a journalist, meets with Boy.  She has been looking into Boy’s family for a story she wanted to write and discovers that Frank Novak was born Frances Novak, and had been a a bright and charismatic young lesbian (in this version of trans-ness, Frances had identified firmly as a woman, as far as we know, up until the event I’m about to speak of) who made her way from working-class roots to doing a PhD in psychology at Columbia when she is raped by a fellow student.  She finds herself traumatized and pregnant, and begins seeing a man in the mirror, and within months has dropped out of sight of all those who had known her and become Frank the ratcatcher.  So, you can see the transphobic elements here, I think: trans-ness is the result of a trauma, and the trans-parent is evil and abusive.

This revelation is somehow supposed to be a major thing for Boy, and I’m not convinced that the novel doesn’t mean us to agree.  Boy, however, is convinced that if she can just go back to her father and coax him into being her mother “again,” all will somehow be well.  At which point, I say what?  Who gives a fuck?  This asshole beat you into unconsciousness several times, tried to drown you, and at one point, drugged you, tied you up, and almost had a starving rat eat through your face so that your boyfriend would no longer find you beautiful.  He stalked you, rejected your daughter out of racism, and told her you were evil.  Who gives a flying fuck what genitals he has?  If this had been presented as Boy’s desperate need for parental love and approval after all these years, something that had been motivating her in her rejection of Snow, part of an ongoing search for a mother who could have protected her from her father’s abuse, it would make psychological sense to me.  But I don’t see that here.  Boy wonders in a couple sentences in the beginning what kind of mother would’ve left her with Frank, but that’s it.  And it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with her relationships with Snow or Bird.  Anyway, Boy takes Snow and Bird with her, and they get into the car to go back to NYC and find Frank and somehow “bring back” Boy’s “mother.”

The novel would’ve been so much better off without this nonsense.  It adds nothing.  It plays on transphobic tropes.  And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the novel.  This novel needed to resolve the relationships among Bird, Snow, and Boy.  It needed to explain why Arturo allowed Boy to send his older daughter away for a decade.

But I can’t not recommend the book, either.  Up until that last chapter, it’s really interesting and thoughtful.  I find what it does with race fascinating.  The relationships among the women are fascinating and full of misunderstanding.  It’s very well written.  Just skip the last chapter.

Banned Books Week: Your banned-kids’-book reading list (updated)

It’s Banned Books Week, celebrating books that are absolutely, objectively horrible and mustn’t be read by anyone. They’re books that need to be blocked from school libraries, ejected from public libraries, struck from publisher’s lists and set on damn fire every time they’re encountered. Which means that most of them (although by no means all of them) are worth reading, particularly when it comes to books for school-age kids who shan’t be exposed to naughty language or mentions of sex. Because if there’s one thing that abstinence-only education has taught us is that if you never, ever mention it, kids will never do it.

So here are six banned and/or challenged children’s and young adult books to read to a kid this week in honor of Banned Books Week.