So feh-muh-nist has “respectfully” excused herself from discussing “the trans issue” on her blog. With all due respect, what the fuck ever. I’ll just respond here.
The term “feminism” is often used in exactly the way you describe. It is a broad, umbrella term that, in the mainstream, does include all factions. Feminism, by those unfamiliar or only marginally familiar with it, is seen as monolithic. When I hear “feminism” being used in this way, I understand that the speaker is often referring to a particular area of concern for feminists or a particular group of feminists or a particular feminist school of thought. I do not deny, however, that feminism actually exists.
But do you want to think about the trans community SAII at the same level that the mainstream thinks about feminism? In a “monolithic” sense? Because that doesn’t seem like such a great strategy. When feminists discuss different schools of feminist thought, there tend to be a great many distinctions within those discussions. There are also individuals and theories who do not succeed in attaining the label of feminism–Wendy McElroy and Camille Paglia are not usually included, nor are Feminists for Life. Nor are you merely talking about a community, or a group of complex individuals. You are talking about a set of differing, frequently contradictory ideas. No one with any sense argues that every belief held or defended by a self-identified feminist is automatically feminist or part of a feminist politic, or that feminists are usually in agreement.
Moreover, your grasp of “trans politics” is as a monolith, not an umbrella. You’re definitely arguing about a particular series of beliefs, one which would not be universal even if your description of it were accurate.
So, I am at a loss. There is a group of people who appear to be associated with movements that have political effects, if not political aims. This group of people is often labeled “queer” or “trans.” Discourse requires some way to discuss this phenomenon. I appreciate that there are vast differences within that group, but that group’s political power is wielded as a group. I have opted not to use terms such as “man-made women and men” or “constructed women/men,” because they seem unnecessarily incendiary. I opted not to use transsexual exclusively, because there are political issues that I’m considering that don’t fall into that category. Transgender is the term I have heard used most consistently and most inclusively. I have not used the term “queer,” because there is often a mistaken assumption that queer necessarily includes Lesbian concerns and issues which it does not. I am open to using another term to discuss what I have referred to as “transgender politics,” but since you contend there is no better term, I guess that is what I’m stuck with if I want to discuss the politics associated with transgender choices and issues.
Thank you so much for not being “incendiary”! Do you have an Amazon wishlist?
No, my point was that no general term would be either useful or accurate, particularly for someone who (ostensibly) wants to engage these topics on a level less superficial than yer average Time Magazine article on the recent/impending death of “feminism.” If you want to talk about transsexuals, talk about transsexuals; if you want to talk about genderqueers, talk about genderqueers; if you want to talk about queers, talk about queers. And if you’ve got time, maybe you could start learning about all the fighting that goes on within each of those more specific terms. Better yet, engage the writings of real, live, individual people instead of attempting to cram any of us into a box of your own construction. You can say “transgender politics” or “transgender issues” or “transgender choices,” until the cows come home, and you will always be talking about a discrete category that doesn’t actually exist.
You know, piny, my impression is that this is a debate you have had many times before, and it’s a relatively new one to me. I don’t have the same ready stock of quick responses and retorts that you do. I am still learning about this subject, and I am going to take some time out of this discussion to explore the information that you and other commenters have shared as well as to do more reading and consideration on my own. I am serious in my efforts to understand all of the forces at work here, but the exchange we are having keeps leaving me feeling on-guard and defensive. That’s not what I want. I want to figure out what I think and why. I want to address the questions and problems that come up as I look at the radical feminist analysis of the politics of transgender, and I don’t think a continued conversation with you gives me much room to do that. In time, I imagine I will revisit the topic with a firmer grasp on how to say what I want to say, though I don’t imagine the actual content will change drastically. I’ll just shine it up so that I don’t get bogged down in the same kind of semantic debates that we are currently stuck in. And, there is always the possibility that my perspective will change considerably.
Respectfully,
YL
I really resent the idea that I’m offering up pat answers. And no, not really. I’ve never had anyone attempt to answer any of the questions I’ve asked you.
Do you understand how it might give people very little faith in you if you pretty much admit that you’re excusing yourself to go hunt down better rhetoric? Especially if you admit that you doubt very much that you’ll actually change your mind? Even though you earlier denied that you had made up your mind in the first place? Even though you earlier denied knowing or understanding all that much about the issue at all?
There’s something missing from this collection of posts, and its absence speaks volumes. Not once, in any one of these entries, have you quoted or engaged actual firsthand source material from someone holding this stance of “trans politics,” whatever you think that term means. Nowhere. (It’s conspicuously scarce on the Questioning Transgender website, too.) I doubt you bothered to find any specific examples before you started “thinking” about this issue on which you are totally undecided. When actual transpeople show up, it’s time to put the discussion on indefinite hiatus.
I don’t think you will actually follow up on this promise to learn more. I don’t think you’ll ever pick up Becoming a Visible Man. I don’t think you’ll lurk in online communities or search out blogs or read books or talk to people. I don’t think you’ll make any effort at all. The problem here isn’t that you don’t know enough or aren’t saying it right–hell, you’re the one who chose to focus on the only arguably semantic comment I made, and to insist that it was about semantics rather than structure. The problem is that you don’t want to hear any of this, and ignorance is your best excuse. There’s nothing respectful about that.