Silencing Dissent
Renegade Evolution was invited to speak at a forum, only now her invitation is not certain because someone is “uncomfortable” with the idea of Ren speaking there.
I’m going to make a generalization, but I feel justified - radical feminists like to act like being called “transphobic” or criticized is silencing, but silencing is actively keeping someone from speaking - like trying to keep a woman out of a debate about pornography because she makes you feel uncomfortable.
That’s silencing - but I guess to many radical feminists, sex workers don’t deserve a voice of their own.
Trans women, sex workers, often women of color… women who are marginalized already are characterized as dangerous and scary, and must be kept away from the civilized feminists who don’t want any disagreement with their particular politics (like blaming sex workers for upholding rape culture).
April 17, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Word. Actively keeping someone from speaking. Which, you know, is what is happening here.
Again.
April 19, 2008 at 1:21 am
[...] transmisogyny, transphobia, troll) Don’t be like “Punk” in the comments for this post: ‘Transwomen’ are usually white and male. It is wholly offensive of any white male person to [...]
April 19, 2008 at 6:19 am
[...] Lisa Harney [...]
April 20, 2008 at 9:13 am
[...] over at questioning transphobia, has recently posted about a scandal involving a debate about sex-work. i don’t have the time or the energy to go into this in detail, so please read the post, but [...]
June 21, 2008 at 5:30 pm
If somebody wants to prove that porn is healthy and harmless, then they need to prove that porn is healthy and harmless. Amazingly enough, they can’t do it — possibly because the vast amount of popular porn involves the objectification, humilation, and degredation of women.
If somebody wants to prove that transgenderism is a valid medical condition, then they need to prove that it is not a fetish. Amazingly enough, this can’t be done either — not using any form of logic, anyway. If after 20 plus years of asking for proof, and the transfolk still can’t develope a logical argument, then a reasonable person starts to ask why.
Claiming that something is phobic can only be valid after the criticisms are actually addressed, and proven to be wrong. Asking the trans community to prove their assertions instead of just whining about their feelings is not a lot to ask. So prove it!
June 21, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Ha that’s hilarious. Prove to me you’re not a duck. Quack quack.
June 21, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Dude, what’d the ducks ever do to deserve this schmuck?
mAndrea: prove that you have a right to exist, much less type your spew on the Internets. Prove that you have a right to oxygen and bandwidth and attention. Because right now, honestly, not seeing the case for it. Like, at all. Bang bang bang, court is in session.
June 21, 2008 at 8:02 pm
That’s not right, Andrea. That’s not even wrong.
That’s a bit terse, though, so how about this: You do not want your criticisms of transgenderism to be examined logically. You rely on fallacies to prove your point - circular reasoning, question begging. You premise requires the conclusion to be correct, which isn’t a supportable argument.
Also, you have no right to demand other people justify our lives and existences to you.
Finally, pointing out that your arguments are transphobic is addressing your criticism.
June 21, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Andrea, what a ridiculous comparison. You’re basically saying: hey, invalid argument, haven’t seen an argument I like defending it, so that means any valid argument I happen not to get must be wrong too.
I have actually never seen anyone argue that porn in its entirety is healthy and harmless. Please point to a pro-porn argument without qualifiers, and pardon me if I don’t hold my breath.
On the other hand, there are folks here who can speak to what’s a valid medical condition, who’ve “examined” this and who do get it. They do not need to prove anything to you. And there are in fact logical arguments, as the hurdle for “logical” is that a reasonable person can understand them, not that Andrea necessarily can.
So please don’t waste any further time here. Go take a logic class and try to understand why your attempt at making a connection above failed miserably.
June 21, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Here, I’ll play!
How about this? My fantasies (daydreams, little stories I tell myself to try to get to sleep, hopes for the future, etc) involving myself, are almost always of me as either a cis*male or a trans*male. While some of these are sexual (I’m a 20 year old guy who isn’t asexual), the majority are of nonsexual things like ‘what if I went to Hogwarts’, being a ninja, being the extended family (with a partner) for my friends’ future kids, or even planning out what tomorrow’s dinner will be.
Now, I don’t know about you. But for me there is no sexual component to imagining what movies and cartoons I’ll introduce my sister’s and friends’ future kids to; if there’s a sexual aspect to that for you, then please stay away from all children. And I say my sister’s and friends’ kids because while I enjoy taking care of kids for a few hours, I’m quite against having any of my own.
I suppose you could choose to disbelieve me, but other than personal testimony, how exactly are we supposed to prove you wrong? Telepathy?
June 21, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Drakyn: your feelings are not relevant, certainly not in a discussion about how people like you feel about their bodies and identities.
The only real way to communicate is to write second-rate poetry and set it to alterna-folk music. Or, you could construct a mosaic about the Eternal Horror That Is Womanhood.
June 21, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Aww, but I wasn’t just talking about feelings… My thoughts were there too…
Oh yeah, slight correction: She’d need telepathy to read my thoughts, but emotions can be read through Empathy. Sometimes these powers come together, sometimes not (like Talia from Arrows of the Queen has empathy but not telepathy).
June 21, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I’d like to be empathic like Lorn on Angel, where I can read people’s futures but only when they sing karaoke. That’d be genius.
June 21, 2008 at 10:18 pm
That’s that guy with the green skin and red horns, right? If so, omg he is so cool; he was one of the main reasons I kept watching Angel…
*is weird*
I’d rather be a shapeshifter like Mystique or Daine (Tamora Pierce’s The Immortals); flying would be so awesome if I could do it on my own instead of having to sit in a metal contraption. ^.^
Talking to and making plants grow better/faster like Briar from Pierce’s Circle of Magic would also be awesome. Being able to work magic through weaving or metal-working like Sandry or Daja would be totally wicked too.
June 21, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Also, the schmuck is hopelessly Unclear On The Concept about what means “fetish,” “medical condition,” or what -any- of this is about. Briefly, though: actually, a number of “fetishes” currently ARE “medicalized,” in the sense that they are listed in the DSM as “paraphilias”. This is not in fact particularly looked at as a desirable thing, for a lot of people: roughly speaking, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Sort of in the same way that a lot of gay folks aren’t and weren’t too crazy about “homosexuality” being looked at as an “illness,” even if at one point it WAS somewhat of an improvement over “morally degenerate/possessed by demons,” on account of, well, there’s nothing WRONG with us, actually, and no, we really aren’t required to justify ourselves to bigots. Either. In fact.
The debate over how “transgender” is to be framed (in the DSM, the legal realm, and other contested areas) is one I personally don’t wish to get into with you, mAndrea, first of all because there are other people who -are actually transgendered and can speak for themselves, and unlike you, I value what people have to say about their own damn experience-. But also because, well, bluntly, you’re a hateful moron, and frankly I think I’d have better luck explaining depth psychology to my cat. At least he’s cute when he randomly starts biting or even coughing up hairballs on the carpet, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for you; and, unlike you, he’s -supposed- to have a brain the size of a walnut.
But right, right; you wanted -logic-, yes indeedy. Let’s just look at that little wet fart you left here for a moment, hm?
“If somebody wants to prove that porn is healthy and harmless, then they need to prove that porn is healthy and harmless. Amazingly enough, they can’t do it — possibly because the vast amount of popular porn involves the objectification, humilation[sic], and degredation[sic] of women.”
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
“Appeal to Belief”
Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:
1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true.
This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.
Of course there is nothing wrong with drinking. Ask anyone, he’ll tell you that he thinks drinking is just fine.
(hint: you’ve made an assertion about “the vast majority of porn” and haven’t backed it up, because you assume that “everyone knows this”; the “burden of proof” is on you, however. See below).
Also: Circular Reasoning. See: Reasoning, Circular. And, as noted, Begging the Question.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” typically has the following form.
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: “X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”
“If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law.”
“If somebody wants to prove that transgenderism is a valid medical condition, then they need to prove that it is not a fetish.”
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
“Burden of Proof”
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Bill: “I think that some people have psychic powers.”
Jill: “What is your proof?”
Bill: “No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.”
Finally, your entire post here is a red herring (I refuse to refer to “straw ___” on principle, although it’s probably at least as accurate).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
# Topic A is under discussion.
# Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
# Topic A is abandoned.
And sure enough, here we all are, engaging you, more or less, when in fact your post has fuck-all to do with the OP, except in the vaguest of senses. The OP had to do with Sam’s attempt to keep Renegade Evolution, a sex worker, from speaking at a debate. Lisa here then explaining how employing the term “transphobic,” -unlike-
Oh, p.s., that’s also an implicit appeal to authority, (i.e. transfolk can’t be trusted to speak for themselves, we need to wait for the AMA and/or APA to give their seal of approval.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
…a rather -odd- position for a, well. You don’t apparently call yourself a feminist anymore, I take it; but as I understand it, it has to do with the “feminists” aren’t -radical- ENOUGH, kee-rect? Because, just so you know, that whole “personal is political” deal? Is a pretty bedrock principle of -most- contemporary forms of feminism, ime at least. Certainly much more so than “o hay, 4 out of 5 doctors agree that you are wrong about your own experience (or whatever it is you fancy in your feverish little brain), so I don’t have to listen to YOU.”
Oh, yeah, “personal attack” is also considered a fallacy, much of the time:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
…but not always.
“A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person’s claim or claims. This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual’s characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.
In general, it is best to focus one’s attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim. ”
***
…In general. However, mAndrea, in this case, there IS no “content;” as people have noted, no one is -required- to prove -anything- to you; this is strictly a claw-sharpening exercise, in fact. And you know, I have to say, if calling you a hateful moron makes me wrong? I don’t wanna be right.
But, I’m not wrong.
You moron.
June 21, 2008 at 10:25 pm
damn. That paragraph was meant to read;
And sure enough, here we all are, engaging you, more or less, when in fact your post has fuck-all to do with the OP, except in the vaguest of senses. The OP had to do with Sam’s attempt to keep Renegade Evolution, a sex worker, from speaking at a debate. Lisa here then explaining how employing the term “transphobic,” -unlike- actively campaigning to have one’s opponent removed from a public debate, is not, in fact, “silencing.” What the blazing fuck does proving transgenderism is a “medical condition”/is not a “fetish” (that is also a false dichotomy, can’t be bovvered to open the link again, look it up yourself) have to do with anything anyone said here?
June 21, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Oh belle, everything! See, this is a trans woman’s blog, which as you should know, is ALWAYS an invitation to have a conversation about whether trans* people are allowed to be trans.
That this is roughly equivalent to me going to a rad-fem’s blog and saying “prove to me why your theories aren’t a crock of shit. PS you’re rubbish” is neither here nor there.
June 22, 2008 at 7:55 am
Ah yes.
Well actually no, since we’re really talking about a helluva lot more than -theory- -here-, aren’t we; it’s really more like the equivalent of, MRA goes to a feminist’s blog, or for that matter any woman who’s been talking in a way that gets up MRA’s ass, any post will do, and goes,
“well! Prove to me that women weren’t evolved/designed by God especially to do my laundry! Prove that consciousness doesn’t start at conception! Prove that the painful experience you’re talking about is REAL rape, REALLY! (*koffDrCrippenkoff*) Prove that feminism isn’t a sinister plot concocted by evil bunnies to turn me into a castrated newt! Can’t do it, can you? Oo look at that, she’s getting all MAD now. Yer so ILLOGICAL. *urp* Oooo, I bet you want to talk about FEELINGS now. -nods- knowingly- That’s cause you’re all, like, hysterical and stuff…”
June 22, 2008 at 8:49 am
Yes, THIS.
It’s LOGIC, baby.
(where by LOGIC is meant “getting burden of proof exactly backwards.”)
June 22, 2008 at 8:57 am
m Andrea:
“If somebody wants to prove that transgenderism is a valid medical condition, then they need to prove that it is not a fetish.”
Really? Why? You’re not saying anything sensible here, as you haven’t yet explained why something cannot both be a fetish AND a valid medical condition.
Not that I believe transgenderism is a fetish (see Drakyn’s comment about how he imagines himself as male in any situation, not just a sexual one.) I don’t think it is (though I do think people can ALSO have fetishes that relate to gender roles/expression), and I think people who assume the two are the same thing are, well, wildly missing the point.
But for one who’s particularly fond of logic, you haven’t shown any logical connection between “medical condition” and “non-fetish.”
You seem to be appealing to something like public opinion: “Most people find fetishes distasteful (or maybe it’s “find them frivolous”), therefore something’s being a fetish means people cannot have legitimate psychological needs that stem from it.”
Which, well… prove it.
June 22, 2008 at 9:07 am
Also, m Andrea:
“If after 20 plus years of asking for proof, and the transfolk still can’t develope a logical argument, then a reasonable person starts to ask why.”
What arguments have you examined, and what fallacies have you found in them? If you made a carefully reasoned argument the conclusion of which was “Therefore, transgendered people are disordered or confused” and I said “m Andrea argues that transgenderism doesn’t exist, but doesn’t use logic” without explaining why either
1) the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises
or
2) the conclusion follows, but the premises are false
I haven’t actually proven you wrong. I’ve simply asserted that you don’t use logical reasoning correctly without backing up my claim.
So let’s see you back yours up, eh?
June 22, 2008 at 5:57 pm
If Andrea is really truly honestly interested in what trans people have to say about ourselves, there’s a wealth of material online as well as off. I’m not going to do her homework for her, she’ll have to dig it up on her own.
As for the fetish question, I like the way she frames the question, with the assumption that a fetish is a bad thing, or perhaps a trivial thing. Or even a bad trivial thing - that having a fetish negates making the issue a serious thing. But the idea that transsexualism is a fetish is bad science brought to us by such luminaries as Ray Blanchard and Michael Bailey. Their work isn’t really all that scientific, and is based on bias and assumption.
* Ray Blanchard has some rather medieval methods of measuring sexual arousal and attraction. He also has some strict guidelines for assisting trans women in transition - there’s a reason that his workplace is referred to as Jurassic Clarke. His view of what trans women are like is hardly the dominant one among those who actually work with trans people, and choosing his view as the true one betrays a bias on the part of the one doing the choosing.
* Michael Bailey’s book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, is based not only on Blanchard’s problematic science, but also on interviews he conducted under false pretenses and misrepresented in his book. His “science” betrays sexism, racism, and homophobia. His logic is based on assumption and prejudice. There’s a reason he was in trouble, and it’s not because trans women got him in trouble out of spite.
But the whole fetish question is an attempt to shift the ground upon which any discussion occurs. It drags it back to “justify yourself.” I don’t have any need to justify myself. I’m already here, I already exist. I’m a woman. That is non-negotiable.
June 23, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Lisa: I didn’t mean to imply anything counter to all that — I know Bailey’s nonsense. I’m just saying that the whole way people take that and run with it, as “Okay, EITHER your self-reporting is right OR this guy is right, and IF this guy is right you’re just kinky and we all know that means you suck” annoys me. It’s… like one of those rolled hors d’oeuvres (sp) with a whole slew of layers, where each one of the layers is further silly nonsense.
June 23, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“So, when did you stop fetishizing your identity?”
June 23, 2008 at 6:22 pm
None of that was aimed at anything you said, Trin. It was all about what Andrea said.
June 25, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Lisa: Okay, thanks. :)