The Monotony of Bigotry
After working through a handful of articles from Questioning Transgender Politics I feel like I’m repeating myself often in responses because they’re repeating themselves often. I feel like I should deconstruct all of the articles there, but I also felt - while working on part 2 of Sex, Lies, etc. yesterday that I was just running over the same ground over and over again.
The problem is just that bigotry isn’t imaginative. It draws from one poisoned well over and over again. It doesn’t matter what the motivations or the history behind discrimination against a particular oppressed group, the language used is always very similar. The paternalism, the condescension, the vicious attacks, they always take the same forms.
Similarly, the denials take the same forms: There’s no such thing as transphobia, or racism ended in the 60s. Sometimes they say you’re just being oversensitive or you won’t earn any sympathy from me with a tone like that. Maybe they’ll offer up a nasty stereotype to dismiss your voice. A favorite by transphobic radical feminists is that trans women are too assertive and take up too much space.
I know I’ve pointed to Nezua’s glosario, especially the wite-magic attax. He also wrote a series of posts* titled The White Lens. These posts explain viewing the world through a lens of white supremacy, but you can describe this in terms of heterosupremacy, cissexual supremacy, class supremacy, ableist supremacy, and so on - and since privileges intersect as much as oppressions do (as well as intersecting with each other), all of these affect how people view each other. As Nezua says,
When I say “White,” I speak of a system of oppression and bias and judgement that is inculcated into our minds from the very first days, and in ways that are amazingly subtle. All the more subtle is a teaching when it is never stated directly, and all the harder to root out.
Many who hold bigoted ideas will say “I’m not opposed to your rights,” or “I’m an ally,” or “I’m not transphobic, transgender people just say that about me because they can’t handle what I have to say.” This is on a few different levels: The basic one is that most people just plain won’t own their own bigotry. They’ll use the wite magic attax to make it your fault. Beyond that, to most people, their own bigotry is invisible to them. Their lenses won’t allow them to see it. Because being oppressive is harmless to them and rarely has consequences, there’s no point for them to even look for it.
What can be frustrating is meeting someone who experiences one form of oppression but will mimic that oppression down to the last pixel when discussing another oppression. When I see this, I want to ask “How can you not see what you’re doing here is exactly what’s been done to you?” but they always have reasons - their own wite-magic attax - as to why the oppression they inflict on you is okay, while the oppression inflicted upon them is an outrage. Donna at The Silence of our Friends discusses this particular issue with regards to white feminists vs. men and women of color vs. white feminists.
An even more frustrating kind of bigotry is when you encounter someone who is part of an oppressed group and agrees with the oppression focused on that group. In a previous post, I discuss a trans woman’s assertion that trans women can never be women. She’s decided to participate in the oppression of trans women for the sake of approval from cis women, and sets out to validate every negative stereotype they hold about trans women in exchange for a pat on the head. She tokenizes herself for conditional acceptance.
But what gets said is always the same dehumanizing, marginalizing, silencing treatment. Black women have had to deal with ungendering in ways similar to trans women - not seen as feminine enough, seen as masculine, loud, and aggressive, for example. People with visible disabilities are interrogated about their medical histories even more aggressively than trans people are about the shape of our genitals. It’s the same insults, over and over and over again. There’s nothing new, nothing interesting, and nothing exciting about this material. The same invalidation, the same appropriation, the same impositions.
The same violence.
So, if I can’t get to a new article to deconstruct every day, I’m just a little burnt out from reading it all. I’m also wondering if my analyses help to counter transphobia and transmisogyny, or of they’re only good for some catharsis.
Anyway, sorry for the short post. I’ll be back to the usual tomorrow. Hopefully I can find something about “butch flight” to tear into. It’d be a minor change of pace, at least.
* The White Lens II, The White Lens III, The White Lens IV, The White Lens V, The White Lens VI, The White Lens VII
November 13, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Actually, I’m sort of stunned at your ability to write so much EVERY day. And I guess read so much.
For me much of the debate is like much of the feminist debate, taken over by words, and shades and made more and more elevated from I guess where I am or try to be which is, admittedly through my own lens, but sort of with my experience and the stories of LGBT people and women (and men) of the underclass, and international experience. I get the stories of the people who care for me: one was taken at gunpoint with her family shown a hut and told, “you are farmers now”; another swam across a river because they thought they were going to be expendable and spent two years in a refugee camp; others left when their family was killed, or their country exploded in revolt. They work 50 hours a week, they help me eat and the like looking at my pictures. They talk to me. Family, food from thier country, what was Xmas like where you lived? What were family reunions like? I don’t think they understood that they were opposing the structure of the patriarchy which determined thier status by a stereotype of traditional models of females by taking a chance in a new country. Oh, I’m not making any sense. Let me try again; for me, these women, listening and talking to me about our lives and struggles and sharing ourselves IS feminism; it is what we have and where we are.
For me, I want to know why every year there are attacks on people who are gender varient near the Johnson street bridge in Victoria - I have talked to police at pride and confirmed it, I want to know why this isn’t published, I want to know why the police don’t have a policy on this. I want to know why last year in Nanimo, a high school student who transitioned during the school year, had people drive by their house shooting into it. The mother called the police and the police refused to come (apparently, from the article and other articles, this is second youth to transition in Nanimo high school - the other had to quit school due to abuse and do home schooling).
Someone is shooting at someone and the police don’t come. Whether the person is black, is Asian, is gay, is trans, is overly tall, is tattooed - whatever. What the incident says is that “This isn’t a human the way other people are human and up here, we, the representatives of authority and the crown don’t see why we should act as if they are human.” - That’s transphobia.
Please get someone to explain why we can have a man who only killed four types of women; aboriginal, prostitutes, junkies and trans women and he did it for 10 years in a very small area of Vancouver. It seems very odd to me (Vancouver Crisis or Rape Centre) - Columbine occurs, the whole of the US is in anquish and bewilderment, there are four movies, there is soul searching. 60 odd women are KILLED by one person in Vancouver and the main concern of the Vancouver Wymyn’s center (or Rape Center, whichever) is……making sure t-women aren’t allowed in the building? Aren’t allowed to volunteer? That’s the major issue of feminism for Vancouver? See, that’s is the kind of stuff which confuses me. I came back to Victoria after 9 years and the “take back the night” march was gone. What, the lower mainland was so obsessed about “take back the wymyn born wymyn spaces” that the idea of disenfranchised women being safe at night (or at any time) just sort of ……trailed off?
We have a national rememberance day for the women killed in Montreal in 1989 (14 women by a guy with a gun fighting “feminism”) - two years ago, a serial series of murders killed I believe 9 or 10 t-women prostitutes. It was hardly reported. I am assuming there will not be TWO day’s of rememberance?
From the montreal mirror: “At least 171 prostitutes were killed between 1991 and 2004, according to Statistics Canada, and almost half the murders remain unsolved. The subcommittee reports said that three-quarters of prostitutes surveyed in Vancouver said they experienced violence.” -
I guess I don’t get what is so abstract about someone getting their face punched and figuring out that the person who did it isn’t right in the head. Or a society which excludes a type of women so that she is put in positions to have her face punched (a recent SF survey found over 50% of t-women in some form of sex work). Is that complicated? Is it abstract? And if groups or attitudes are contributing towards it then why shouldn’t they be held accountable too? For example, I am sure all know of the threatened boycott of feminist groups against Olivia records which started as pressure against Sandy Stone in 1977 and culminated in 1979. Did these women care what happened to Sandy Stone? Did they care if she was able to find other employment? If she was emotionally damaged? Or did they try to emotionally put in in a position where they threated to hurt her friends and destroy the company if she did not do what they wanted (Ironically this was touted as a blow AGAINST the ideas of the patriarchy). So the idea was more important than a person….yeah, that’s always a good sign of a safe movement.
I guess I had my own rant today - sorry - I just don’t see it as very complicated. And this throught crossed my head last week watching yet ANOTHER misrepresentation of a t-person, specifically a t-woman in a TV series. I realized, ‘ah ha, the reason they always have the basic and complicated facts wrong (including medical shows!), is because I think the general population, unless you have seen or know someone who has transitioned, cannot imagine the unbelievable grinding dedication and determination required financially, emotionally, physically and mentally in order to get UP to the level where a person is publically mocked, and at constant physical danger. When I think of, for example transitioning in high school in some place like rural BC, or Alabama or Tenn, and I think of marine boot camp. I think many of the transitioning people might enjoy the safety and security and serenity of boot camp.
Sorry about the length
November 13, 2007 at 10:36 pm
No, it’s not complicated at all. It’s very simple and direct and awful. I’ve never been in sex work, and I’ve never dated anyone who didn’t know I was trans, but I still look at every situation as one that can turn potentially threatening, any women’s space I’m in that can suddenly turn trans exclusive not because of anything I’ve done, but just because someone noticed I was there. I don’t like being around cis people in social situations because I’m not even used to being around people who don’t know (because my “friends” would casually out me without my permission), and when people know, they often treat you as a token or a novelty.
I haven’t covered the real violence that happens to trans people as well as I could have.
Second-wave feminism has hammered on the idea that the ideas are more important than people. Everyone who refuses to fit into their feminist ideals must be repudiated harshly, and for some reason, trans women were targeted. Never mind what shape Olivia would have been in if Sandy Stone hadn’t been there, for example. The theory is more like a religious belief (and I’ve had one radfem say so in that many words).
I was reading the recent discussion about ENDA on Heart’s blog today, and I noticed several statements to the effect that transgender people don’t suffer from transphobic discrimination/violence, but sexist discrimination/violence. One poster advised a trans woman who posted to the thread that “I wouldn’t necessarily go into a false worry over a discrimination as a transgender person that people warned you about. Every life is unique, and you are living in 2007 not 1962. The world is bigger, not more enlightened but simply bigger.” This was in a thread where Heart and one of her regular posters were falsely insisting that the language in the gender-inclusive ENDA would harm women by taking away Title VII protections and force them to declare a gender identity.
It’s not just the really rabid radical feminists, either. You can see it from John Aravosis, who contemptuously dismisses the idea that he’s transphobic or transmisogynistic, or Barney Frank’s speech about how the horrible trannies were trying to block ENDA. There’s just this massive denial that this discrimination even exists. I’ve seen it with racism, sexism, and ableism especially, but the language used about trans people - especially trans women - is the most vile, degrading, dehumanizing language I’ve seen used to describe anyone who isn’t autistic (and that’s worth a whole other rant right there).
As I’ve said before, it’s okay to portray trans people’s lives as disposable in the media - you wrote about the NCIS episode that had a trans woman - and there’s the Jimmy Kimmel example I reference. And the trans panic defenses when trans women are murdered, with juries actually believing that murder is an appropriate punishment for being a trans woman, as if attempting to date is a horrible deceitful action.
I still would love to know how many trans women have to live on the streets, have to turn to prostitution, have to be hooked on drugs, have to be infected with AIDS, have to die before we’ve earned the right to be people.
Your last paragraph is right on - so many times, trans people are discussed as if we just transition on a whim, because it sounds cool to change sex or whatever, and not because to not do it would be to live a lie, to be depressed - possibly to the point of suicide, to resist the sense of just living the wrong life.
I have focused a lot on the feminist stuff because it is the most concentrated and visible collection of hate speech about trans people that I can point to. Part of it is just catharsis - being able to tear the lies apart and explain why they’re lies. But there’s only so much of that material, and there really is a lot of nastier stuff out there that needs to be talked about.
Thank you for this comment.
November 13, 2007 at 10:44 pm
You’re absolutely right, of course. After a while, I’d imagine that you’d get desensitized to the nonsense, the bigotry, the pain, because it’s all the same, it’s all vicious or subtly vicious, it’s all intolerant, it’s all unintelligent.
But this sort of stuff, reading this sort of stuff, it wounds me and people I know, often physically. We often feel physically sick after reading this sort of stuff.
And there’s no way of countering this directly.
November 13, 2007 at 10:54 pm
I didn’t mean it desensitizes. It stings every time I’ve read it. I started this blog because I didn’t say anything every time I came across it - that where it appeared, I didn’t have a voice, and if I tried to assert one I’d be silenced.
I was commenting more on how my posts get repetitive, and then using that to talk about how bigotry’s awfulness is banal, which wasn’t so much any kind of special point, just frustration on my part.
So I do the thing with the articles because they have wounded me, and I want to claim my voice and say “this is wrong and this is why it’s wrong.” I couldn’t do that today, so I thought I’d talk about why I do it instead.
I hope, when others read it, that they get some catharsis from it as well. Some anger, too. I hope it wounds less than the writing I’m trying to deconstruct.
Thanks for the words, Z.
November 14, 2007 at 12:27 am
Ahh, I didn’t quite say what I meant properly. I was talking a bit more generally. You’d think that anyone would get desensitized, but we get hurt by this bigoted stuff. I didn’t mean you personally, necessarily :)
November 14, 2007 at 12:41 am
That’s fine, I thought I might have come off as depressed more than just a bit empty on the writing batteries.
Also, I had Elizabeth’s post on my mind. She skewered what I’ve really been a bit afraid to touch on as much as I should - the whole violence thing. While it does suck that radical feminists write this propaganda, and it is cathartic and therapeutic for me to write my rebuttals, and I will do all of the articles on Questioning Transgender, I do need to talk about the serious real problems that’s in the rest of society. Not just the employment or housing stuff, but the prostitution and the losing of families and the murder.
It’s really painful to talk about the murder too, because every one I read about, every time, I see myself in their position. I need to talk about it, because it’s the month for it, and because not talking about it is a huge failure on my part.
On the other hand, it is a good reminder that there is more to talk about, more important matters especially.
November 14, 2007 at 8:11 am
“Someone is shooting at someone and the police don’t come. Whether the person is black, is Asian, is gay, is trans, is overly tall, is tattooed - whatever. What the incident says is that “This isn’t a human the way other people are human and up here, we, the representatives of authority and the crown don’t see why we should act as if they are human.” - That’s transphobia.”
Yes, exactly. It’s so odd to me that people find *theory* so important, when people are getting shot. When no one CARES that people are DYING.
When that’s happening it’s not time for theory. It’s time for action.
But theeeeeeeeee theorytheorytheorytheory!
Gods, if I never see another theory again it’ll be too soon. *cranky*
I mean, how do you *just* critique politics when people are dying? How is it that Char and her cronies don’t realize that that is a luxury? A luxury that the people she’s so blithely discussing don’t have?
November 14, 2007 at 11:15 am
Reading what is written, I defintiely find it catharic.
When I first started stumbling across feminist writing on Trans* online and in print, I was deeply shaken, I couldn’t understand what was going on - and didn’t have the ability to respond to it, externally or internally, in any remotely convincing fashion.
After awhile, I started to believe some of it must be true - to holt my life up against these screeds … was I doing harm? Did I damage other people purely by being? I didn’t think so but when it was so relentless … it’s hard not to take some of it on.
Reading back what is written here has really helped me deal with all of that rubbish. And take a better perspective on real life things too.
November 14, 2007 at 11:44 am
It’s the same insults, over and over and over again. There’s nothing new, nothing interesting, and nothing exciting about this material. The same invalidation, the same appropriation, the same impositions.
The same violence.
So, if I can’t get to a new article to deconstruct every day, I’m just a little burnt out from reading it all. I’m also wondering if my analyses help to counter transphobia and transmisogyny, or of they’re only good for some catharsis.
One thing that has occurred to me is that these tactics of dominatio that suck up energy and keep the oppressor group protected from any actual change that would threaten the privilege.
I also keep thinking how sharper I am in perceiving some of these dynamics since I have been struggling with emotional abuse from a white woman in a relationship. I mean for 20 years now I’ve been directly concerned and frustrated about stuff like racism in white feminism. But it seems to me that I have gotten almost *eerie* sensitive to this stuff in the last several years because I see some of the same dynamics, the ones that are about lying and mindfucking and messing with reality and objectifying while claiming “I really care about you” — I could be wrong but from my experience, I see real overlap in these interpersonal dynamics of abuse and the tactics in/from the movements.
And what I DO know *personally* is that the tactics of abuse I have experienced are a neverending cycle that suck up energy for the perp and keep me exhausted. And it’s hard to ignore the violence when it is in my face, I can’t just ignore it, let it go. But really more and more I’m starting to understand this as a tactic of abuse that keeps me tired. So considering the other overlaps I think I see, I wonder if maybe that is a dynamic in the larger movements too…I don’t want to project, but that’s what I’m thinking anyway…
November 14, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Trin,
And of course, it’s not even treated as theory. It’s treated as church.
Arabesque,
Thank you much. That’s part of what I am trying to do - show that this stuff isn’t real, that it’s just hate speech. I admit I was kind of forgetting that.
Michelle,
Thank you for the insight on the abuse, sucking up energy, lying, mindfucking, etc. In the ENDA thread I mention above, a trans woman comes into the discussion to defend ENDA and they immediately start working on her, telling that as a a trans woman she has to “tune down to woman” and how trans women fill up social space just like men. It’s hard - when you don’t even have any experience with having prejudice directed at you - to be able to see the bullshit that they want you to agree with. How they’re asking you to give up part of your personhood.
I really think you have a point, and I wonder how to break that cycle.
November 14, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Yeah, check out this thread over at The Angry Black Woman… I am starting to get a feel for this kinda stuff. The criticism of a stereotype is then made into an overarching, omnipotent reality: “Does any story now where a black character shows a sense of loyalty to a white character carry a racist overtone?” Way to ignore this ONE particular criticism and try to change the subject to generalize about ALL literature/TV, etc. Damn, that pissed me off. The subject is THIS CHARACTER and THIS SHOW… but damn, it’s like when people criticized Injun Joe in Mark Twain… but we like Injun Joe!!!!–whine the white people.
Same thing here. Absolutely the same. The transwomen presented at “Questioning Transgender” are stereotypes, based on Robin Morgan’s famous characterization (which I dug up and read this weekend, and why did I miss it the first time around????) of transwomyn as invaders of women’s space… not of women who feel they too, belong in women’s space.
If you can continue to say THEY, instead of WE, well, you have successfully circumscribed the argument. It’s about those people over there, not about people who have anything in common with you.
November 14, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Daisy, where can I find that Robin Morgan piece? If that’s where all of this started, I need to see it.
I’ve heard that Robin Morgan was rabidly transmisogynistic, but I’ve been thinking more about the stuff that everyone talks about - Daly, Raymond, Greer, etc.
Thank you. :)
November 14, 2007 at 8:55 pm
And BTW, it’s not a huge thing, it’s only like a paragraph, but she initially said it at a podium during a speech and it was like a call to arms.
When I first read the book, I just read it like a book. But this time, I read it as if I was sitting in the audience listening to her.. then I read it as if I was a transwoman in the audience listening to her, and how that would have been…
In short, a full-frontal attack.
November 14, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Lisa, check out the book GOING TOO FAR, it’s in there. About Sandy Stone.
November 14, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Thank you much.
With any luck, I can find it at the library and make some photocopies.