I’m posting this here because I said I would, and because this comment doesn’t exactly jibe with tekanji’s stated objective.
There’s a thread on calling a truce on the sex wars over at Alas.
Belledame said this:
can I just say one last time:
*why* is this always, always, always forever framed in terms of female prostitution only?
I swear sometimes it’s like gay men don’t exist. much less transgendered people (speaking of people for whom money-making options are severely limited).
And I gotta say, the fact that one of the biggest anti-trafficking/prostitution networks out there, COTW is run by someone who also happens to be a virulent transphobe (Janice Raymond) doesn’t really make me terrifically optimistic about what they might propose to do about (for instance) the katoeys in Thailand.
And Ms Xeno responded with this:
Because PHMT is, you should excuse the expression, a drag. Yes, male prostitutes exist, but does anyone have proof that they make up numbers on par with those of female prostitutes ? Also, if there’s legions of “Janes” out there running around and handing men sex for money on the street, I’d really like to that proof, too.
And little light said this:
Thank you, belledame, for pointing out the general omission of male and transgendered prostitutes, a mistake I’ve made, here, too. I really don’t think this is a PHMT argument. It’s important. Maybe, for instance, only a small percentage of sex workers are transgendered; but a large percentage of transgendered people, worldwide, are in prostitution, and often in a great deal of danger because of it. Ordered that way, I have to say, that makes it a priority to deal with as an issue. Priority to the point of not discussing the huge majority of prostitutes who are cisgendered women? Of course not–and the whole problem with PHMT is the notion that it derails efforts to discuss helping women. This doesn’t. (And, xeno, I don’t think it’s mostly Janes exploiting male prostitution, either. That’s mostly johns, too.)
And Ms Xeno said this (emphases mine):
Start a thread somewhere then. Or direct us to a thread where transgender issues on the subject are under discussion. I didn’t see anything in the original post discussing transgender folk specifically, so it would never have occurred to me to throw them in the mix. But, again, I find belldame’s use of the subject to be a diversion. Now we’re to have women and transgendered folk as our responsibility, while once again men laugh all the way to bank and are somehow mysteriously exempt from this picture. I don’t know why that should be.
And I said this:
I’m gonna take this over to my blog, but:
These “transgendered folk” overwhelmingly are women, and I think that “it didn’t occur to me to throw them into the mix” was sort of the blindspot being referenced.
And then Ms Xeno said this:
Yes, great. I’m more than happy to be the goat here, despite the fact that belldame was looking for an excuse to throw some more guilt on the fire. Do you plan to point a finger at the pro-industry feminist camp for this “blind spot,” not to mention the johns, or just those of us who don’t unconditionally rah-rah the exchange of money for sex no matter whose doing it ?
You mean, like the “pro-industry feminist” who pointed out the omission of transpeople, only to be accused of creating a diversion from the real issues by an “anti-industry” feminist or three? Or the two who chimed in to offer support and information of their own? Should I be castigating them? Should “pro-industry feminists” derail the discussion of real women for the sake of discussing trans, or should they ignore brutalized transwomen when they’re not looking for a cheap shot? I’m confused.
Here’s the thing: by and large, the “pro-industry” camp is not the problem. “Sex-positive” feminists–e.g. Carol Queen and Michelle Tea–don’t ignore trans sex workers or transphobia, don’t subscribe to ideologies that reference transwomen as men, and don’t write in ways that make it abundantly clear that they believe that transwomen sex workers are men. They don’t argue that transwomen enjoy sexual harassment. They don’t argue that transwomen sex workers are privileged or exempt from punitive laws. They don’t argue that transwomen are rapists rather than raped women. They read writing by transwomen, attend events focused on transwomen, and include transwomen on their panels and at their readings. They are doing the work. In fact, that work is frequently brought up as evidence that they’re male-identified patriarchy fuckers obsessed with men and male problems. And this is just IME, but they don’t get really defensive when someone points out an implicit dichotomy in their argument between transwomen and women. They also don’t request that mentions of transwomen be taken elsewhere, as they have no place in a discussion about women.
And as to the second part…Oh, my God, that’s brilliant! No trans activist has ever challenged men for being transphobic, or for seeing trans bodies as disposable objects! No trans activist has ever complained about transphobic attitudes on the part of law enforcement, the courts, social-service organizations, or society in general! It hadn’t ever occurred to anyone! Why, there certainly isn’t an enormous body of writing by trans activists and trans sex workers calling men out for exactly that attitude towards transpeople! I need to write this down. I’m gonna go tell Emi Koyama that she finally has a purpose in life. She’ll be so pleased.