#but it is so representative of the worldview of middle class liberal trans women

[jacquelinemerritt]

Queer Media Review: Her Story (2016)

Originally posted September 1st, 2016

Honest, earnest, and representative, even to a fault.

This review is the first in a weekly series of pieces on queer and trans media. See them all here!

The importance of Her Story as a piece of queer representative media cannot be understated. In a time where the majority of films about trans women are cast and crewed by cisgender men and women, that Her Story was co-written and co-produced by Jen Richards and Laura Zak, a trans woman and cis queer woman, respectively, makes it unique, and lends the entire production a sense of honesty and earnestness that defines the series. Unfortunately, that earnestness is what leads to the biggest flaws of the series, near the end, though they are far from great enough to bring down the overall quality of this Emmy Nominated series.

Her Story begins by setting up its primary framing device: Allie (Laura Zak) is a journalist writing for a queer magazine called “Gay LA,” and she decides that she wants to write a story on the dating lives of trans women with Violet (Jen Richards) as her primary interview subject. They interview over coffee, and Violet establishes the “rules” (in the screenwriting sense) about trans women that will hold throughout the series (and reflect their existence in the actual world). It’s all done very playfully, however, and the scene serves to set up a burgeoning relationship between these two women, with Allie coyly flirting with Violet the entire time.

These two women clearly have romantic chemistry with one another, but it’s established around the same time that Violet is already in a committed relationship with Mark (Josh Wingate), with the primary conflict being both that Mark doesn’t want Violet seeing this woman and Violet being unsure of her own sexuality, having exclusively dated men since transitioning to life as woman.

While this relationship is the main focus of the series, a number of subplots are set up in the background as well. Paige (Angelica Ross), a civil rights attorney and Violet’s friend, is attempting to navigate a new relationship with James (Christian Ochoa) a (presumed) cis man who is unaware that Paige is trans, while Lisa (Caroline Whitney Smith) is attempting to discourage her friend Allie from dating Violet, arguing that it is impossible to be a lesbian and date someone who is a “former man,” misgendering Violet and using transphobic language against her. These two subplots coalesce wonderfully in a way I won’t spoil. Both of these subplots are given satisfactory endings which leave both Allie and Lisa with the opportunity for significant character growth if this series continues.

While the side stories are resolved well, the main story of Violet and Allie’s relationship is concluded rather clumsily, with Violet giving a speech on her character’s entire history in the fifth episode which feels like an attempt to make Violet representative of as many trans women as possible, rather than to build complexity into her character.

What’s more, Allie being present with Violet to receive the revelation is spurred on by a poorly designed coincidence that would seem to serve to alienate Violet further from one of her few friends, the lesbian punk rock artist Bad Penny (Elizabeth Frances). This is glossed over in favor of giving Allie an opportunity to learn Violet’s darkest secrets early on. It’s a weak bit of storytelling that both lessens the impact of Violet’s eventual coupling with Allie and sidelines the reality of Violet’s experiences in favor of pushing her into the story’s resolution (the latter of which I find particularly frustrating).

Nevertheless, these flaws aren’t enough to lessen the value of Her Story. Even with a weak resolution to the main story, the development of Allie and Violet’s relationship is honest, and watching Paige attempt to navigate the complex issue of whether or not to disclose that she’s trans to her love interest is incredibly compelling. That issue in particular is one that has been absent in almost all trans media created so far, despite being a very regular part of the trans experience dating. Seeing that conflict depicted on screen is both affirming and empowering, as is the complexity of Violet’s confusion over her own sexuality.

I would highly recommend Her Story as an honest depiction of navigating romance as a trans woman. It’s well-constructed, well-shot, and well-acted, and its flaws come nowhere near outweighing its strengths.

Rating: 4/5

Her Story can be viewed on the series’ official site, HerStoryShow.com.

Critical Eye Criticism is the work of Jacqueline Merritt, a trans woman, filmmaker, and critic. You can support her continued film criticism addiction on Patreon.

#queer media #trans media #transgender #indie #drama #comedy #dramedy #romantic dramedy #i uh #i think i hate her story now #like i guess it's fine enough as like #a story #but it is so representative of the worldview of middle class liberal trans women #and just #endlessly frustrating as part of that narrative #like the attempt to make 'violet' a stand-in for as many trans women as possible just feels alienating to me now #she does not feel like she comes from my community #instead she feels more akin to the few trans women being like #'hey! i wanna be part of the military industrial complex! stop discriminating against me! LET ME COMMIT WAR CRIMES!' #she feels nothing like all the broke queer fag trans girl commies i know now #most of whom are hardcore lesbians and wouldn't even flinch at being attracted to girls #i think i am legitimately too nice to this series #i guess it must have made me feel represented back then #but this shit is nothing i want to be associated with now #queer media reviews

[arcticdementor]

In the mid-2010s, a curious new vocabulary began to unspool itself in our media. A data site, storywrangling.org, which measures the frequency of words in news stories, revealed some remarkable shifts. Terms that had previously been almost entirely obscure suddenly became ubiquitous—and an analysis of the New York Times, using these tools, is a useful example. Looking at stories from 1970 to 2018, several terms came out of nowhere in the past few years to reach sudden new heights of repetition and frequency. Here’s a list of the most successful neologisms: non-binary, toxic masculinity, white supremacy, traumatizing, queer, transphobia, whiteness, mansplaining. And here are a few that were rising in frequency in the last decade but only took off in the last few years: triggering, hurtful, gender, stereotypes.

Language changes, and we shouldn’t worry about that. Maybe some of these terms will stick around. But the linguistic changes have occurred so rapidly, and touched so many topics, that it has all the appearance of a top-down re-ordering of language, rather than a slow, organic evolution from below. While the New York Times once had a reputation for being a bit stodgy on linguistic matters, pedantic, precise and slow-to-change, as any paper of record might be, in the last few years, its pages have been flushed with so many neologisms that a reader from, say, a decade ago would have a hard time understanding large swathes of it. And for many of us regular readers, we’ve just gotten used to brand new words popping up suddenly to re-describe something we thought we knew already. We notice a new word, make a brief mental check, and move on with our lives.

But we need to do more than that. We need to understand that all these words have one thing in common: they are products of an esoteric, academic discipline called critical theory, which has gained extraordinary popularity in elite education in the past few decades, and appears to have reached a cultural tipping point in the middle of the 2010s. Most normal people have never heard of this theory—or rather an interlocking web of theories—that is nonetheless changing the very words we speak and write and the very rationale of the institutions integral to liberal democracy.

What we have long needed is an intelligible, intelligent description of this theory which most people can grasp. And we’ve just gotten one: “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity,” by former math prof James Lindsay and British academic, Helen Pluckrose. It’s as deep a dive into this often impenetrable philosophy as anyone would want to attempt. But it’s well worth grappling with.

…

During the 1980s and 1990s, this somewhat aimless critique of everything hardened into a plan for action. Analyzing how truth was a mere function of power, and then seeing that power used against distinct and oppressed identity groups, led to an understandable desire to do something about it, and to turn this critique into a form of activism. Lindsay and Pluckrose call this “applied postmodernism”, which, in turn, hardened into what we now know as Social Justice.  

You can see the rationale. After all, the core truth of our condition, this theory argues, is that we live in a system of interlocking oppressions that penalize various identity groups in a society. And all power is zero-sum: you either have power over others or they have power over you. To the extent that men exercise power, for example, women don’t; in so far as straight people wield power, gays don’t; and so on. There is no mutually beneficial, non-zero-sum advancement in this worldview. All power is gained only through some other group’s loss. And so the point became not simply to interpret the world, but to change it, to coin a phrase, an imperative which explains why some critics call this theory a form of neo-Marxism.

The “neo” comes from switching out Marxism’s focus on materialism and class in favor of various oppressed group identities, who are constantly in conflict the way classes were always in conflict. And in this worldview, individuals only exist at all as a place where these group identities intersect. You have no independent existence outside these power dynamics. I am never just me. I’m a point where the intersecting identities of white, gay, male, Catholic, immigrant, HIV-positive, cis, and English all somehow collide. You can hear this echoed in the famous words of Ayanna Pressley: “We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need any more black faces that don’t want to be a black voice.” An assertion of individuality is, in fact, an attack upon the group and an enabling of oppression.

…

There is no such thing as persuasion in this paradigm, because persuasion assumes an equal relationship between two people based on reason. And there is no reason and no equality. There is only power. This is the point of telling students, for example, to “check their privilege” before opening their mouths on campus. You have to measure the power dynamic between you and the other person first of all; you do this by quickly noting your interlocutor’s place in the system of oppression, and your own, before any dialogue can occur. And if your interlocutor is lower down in the matrix of identity, your job is to defer and to listen. That’s partly why diversity at the New York Times, say, has nothing to do with a diversity of ideas. Within critical theory, the very concept of a “diversity of ideas” is a function of oppression. What matters is a diversity of identities that can all express the same idea: that liberalism is a con-job. Which is why almost every NYT op-ed now and almost every left-leaning magazine reads exactly alike.

Language is vital for critical theory—not as a means of persuasion but of resistance to oppressive discourses. So take the words I started with. “Non-binary” is a term for someone who subjectively feels neither male nor female. Since there is no objective truth, and since any criticism of that person’s “lived experience” is a form of traumatizing violence, that individual’s feelings are the actual fact. To subject such an idea to, say, the scrutiny of science is therefore a denial of that person’s humanity and existence. To inquire what it means to “feel like a man,” is also unacceptable. An oppressed person’s word is always the last one. To question this reality, even to ask questions about it, is a form of oppression itself. In the rhetoric of social justice, it is a form of linguistic violence. Whereas using the term nonbinary is a form of resistance to cis heteronormativity. One is evil; the other good.

Becoming “woke” to these power dynamics alters your perspective of reality. And so our unprecedentedly multicultural, and multiracial democracy is now described as a mere front for “white supremacy.” This is the reality of our world, the critical theorists argue, even if we cannot see it. A gay person is not an individual who makes her own mind up about the world and can have any politics or religion she wants; she is “queer,” part of an identity that interrogates and subverts heteronormativity. A man explaining something is actually “mansplaining” it—because his authority is entirely wrapped up in his toxic identity. Questioning whether a trans woman is entirely interchangeable with a woman—or bringing up biology to distinguish between men and women—is not a mode of inquiry. It is itself a form of “transphobia”, of fear and loathing of an entire group of people and a desire to exterminate them. It’s an assault.

My view is that there is nothing wrong with exploring these ideas. They’re almost interesting if you can get past the hideous prose. And I can say this because liberalism can include critical theory as one view of the world worth interrogating. But critical theory cannot include liberalism, because it views liberalism itself as a mode of white supremacy that acts against the imperative of social and racial justice. That’s why liberalism is supple enough to sustain countless theories and ideas and arguments, and is always widening the field of debate; and why institutions under the sway of Social Justice necessarily must constrain avenues of thought and ideas. That’s why liberalism is dedicated to allowing Ibram X. Kendi to speak and write, but Ibram X. Kendi would create an unelected tribunal to police anyone and any institution from perpetuating what he regards as white supremacy—which is any racial balance not exactly representative of the population as a whole. 

#andrew sullivan #substack #read the whole thing

[fatphobiabusters]

I've seen a few terms on this site (ableist, terf, and swerf) almost everywhere, and I was hoping if you could explain what it means. Thanks!

Hi anon! I’m technically taking a break from this blog, but I actually really wanted to answer this question in particular because it’s really important. I hope you don’t mind!

Content note: violence, transphobia, whorephobia, sex shaming, use of slurs, rape mention, death mention, murder mention, genitalia mention, pedophilia mention

1. Ableist

Ableism is hate, oppression, harassment, disdain, disrespect, erasure, etc related to disabled people. It can go from openly hating and mocking disabled people, to normalized ableism in the language (the use of ableist slurs like “dm*b”, “l*me”, “st*pid”, etc). It can also be not taking disabled people into account when stating things (for example “just go and walk every day to be healthier!” when a lot of people CAN’T walk). 

To quote Urban Dictionary:

Ableism is the discrimination or prejudice against people who have disabilities. Ableism can take the form of ideas and assumptions, stereotypes, attitudes and practices, physical barriers in the environment, or larger scale oppression. It is oftentimes unintentional and most people are completely unaware of the impact of their words or actions.

The thought that people with disabilities are dependent and require the care and support of someone else is an example of ableism. Sometimes this comes out in the form of people helping people with disabilities without asking them if they need assistance (and of course waiting the affirmative response).Another example would be in designing spaces, places, events, information, communication, and technology without considering the variety of needs of people with disabilities. For example, a building that is built to code can still be technically inaccessible if the ramp is around the back of the building or if there is no automatic door opener installed.

Another quote from Urban Dictionary explains it this way:

Ableism is a form of discrimination toward people with disabilities either physical or mental. Generally, ableism prevents disabled persons from having the same access to rights and services that average people have no problems obtaining.

Wikipedia explains it this way:

In ableist societies, able-bodiedness is viewed as the norm; people with disabilities are understood as those that deviate from that norm. Disability is seen as something to overcome or to fix, for example, through medical intervention. The ableist worldview holds that disability is an error or a failing rather than a consequence of human diversity, akin to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender. One common type of ableist behavior denies others’ autonomy by speaking for or about them rather than allowing them to speak for themselves. An example of this behavior occurs when a waiter speaks to an aid or a companion instead of directly to the person with a disability.

Other definitions of ableism include those of Chouinard, who defines it as “ideas, practices, institutions, and social relations that presume able-bodiedness, and by so doing, construct persons with disabilities as marginalized […] and largely invisible ‘others,’” and of Amundson and Taira, who define ableism as “a doctrine that falsely treats impairments as inherently and naturally horrible and blames the impairments themselves for the problems experienced by the people who have them.”

Ableism is also related to mental disabilities and mental illnesses as well. Discrimination against someone for things like having a low IQ, being “cr*zy,” not processing information or emotions in a way deemed “normal,” and other similar acts are all ableism. Other words for this specific form of ableism include “mentalism” and “sanism,” although I personally dislike those terms.

Wikipedia explains:

Mentalism or sanism is a form of discrimination and oppression because of a mental trait or condition a person has, or is judged to have. This may or may not be described in terms of mental disorder or disability. The discrimination is based on numerous factors such as: stereotypes about neurodivergence (e.g. autism, ADHD, bipolar, schizophrenia, personality disorder diagnoses), specific behavioral phenomena (e.g. stuttering, tics), or supposed intelligence.

Like other “isms” such as sexism and racism, mentalism involves multiple intersecting oppressions and complex social inequalities and imbalances of power. It can result in covert discrimination by multiple, small insults and indignities. It is characterized by judgments of another person’s perceived mental health status. These judgments are followed by actions such as blatant, overt discrimination (refusal of service, denying of human rights). Mentalism impacts how individuals are treated by the general public, by mental health professionals, and by institutions, including the legal system. The negative attitudes may also be internalized.

The terms mentalism (from mental) and sanism (from sane) have some widespread use, though concepts such as social stigma, and in some cases ableism, may be used in similar but not identical ways.

While mentalism and sanism are used interchangeably, sanism is becoming predominant in certain circles, such as academics, those who identify as mad and mad advocates and in a socio-political context where sanism is gaining ground as a movement. The movement of sanism is an act of resistance among those who identify as mad, consumer survivors, and mental health advocates. In academia evidence of this movement can be found in the number of recent publications about sanism and social work practice.

When someone says something is “ableist,” they are saying it contributes to ableism (or mentalism/sanism, if you choose to use such terms). In other words, they are saying it is discriminatory to people with mental illness, mental disability, or physical disability. 

2. TERF or TWERF

I’m sure you already know to some extent what feminism is, but just in case, let me share with you a quote:

Feminism comprises a number of egalitarian social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and equal rights for women. It is the doctrine advocating social, political and all other rights for women which are equal to those of men.

Feminist political activists have been concerned with issues such as a woman’s right of contract and property; a woman’s right to bodily integrity and autonomy (e.g. on matters such as reproductive rights, abortion rights, access to contraception and quality prenatal care); women’s rights to protection from domestic violence, sexual harassment and rape; women’s workplace rights (e.g. maternity leave, equal pay, glass ceiling practices, etc); and opposition to all other forms of discrimination.

Feminist Theory is an extension of Feminism into theoretical or philosophical fields, such as anthropology, sociology, economics, women’s studies, literary criticism, art history, psychoanalysis and philosophy. It aims to understand gender inequality and focuses on gender politics, power relations and sexuality, as well as the promotion of women’s rights and interests.

Wikipedia explains feminism this way:

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.

Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women’s rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to earn fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to receive education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage, and to have maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to promote bodily autonomy and integrity, and to protect women and girls from rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.

Feminist campaigns are generally considered to be a main force behind major historical societal changes for women’s rights, particularly in the West, where they are near-universally credited with achieving women’s suffrage, gender neutrality in English, reproductive rights for women (including access to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to enter into contracts and own property. Although feminist advocacy is, and has been, mainly focused on women’s rights, some feminists, including bell hooks, argue for the inclusion of men’s liberation within its aims because men are also harmed by traditional gender roles. Feminist theory, which emerged from feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women’s social roles and lived experience; it has developed theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond to issues concerning gender.

Numerous feminist movements and ideologies have developed over the years and represent different viewpoints and aims. Some forms of feminism have been criticized for taking into account only white, middle class, and educated perspectives. This criticism led to the creation of ethnically specific or multicultural forms of feminism, including black feminism and intersectional feminism.

When you see someone being called a TERF, it is a warning to others that this is a feminist who is dangerous, bigoted, and hateful towards transgender individuals. Calling someone a TERF means you are calling them a feminist who is transphobic and promoting hateful, antitrans ideologies.

To quote Geek Feminism:

TERF is an acronym for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Sometimes, “exclusionary” is expanded as “eliminationist” or “exterminationist” instead to more accurately convey the degree to which TERFs advocate for harm towards trans people, specifically trans people who were coercively assigned male at birth.

Some TERFs call themselves “gender-critical feminists”, a term which is synonymous with “TERF”.

Their position (which is not shared by this wiki) denies that trans people’s self-affirmed genders and sexes are equally valid as cis people’s self-affirmed genders and sexes. It has a decades-long history of allying with anti-feminist causes in denying trans people access to health care, and other human rights.

Unsurprisingly, many TERFs complain that “TERF” should be regarded as a slur.

According to Tracey at The TERFs (an anti-TERF site) and Cristan Williams at The Transadvocate, the term TERF was first used in writing by Viv Smythe/tigtog of Hoyden About Town in August 2008. tigtog said in the interview with Cristan Williams that she believes that she and Lauredhel coined it some time prior as a chat shorthand.

In some contexts, you might also hear “TWERF” used instead to convey that the person isn’t against all trans people, but rather just transgender women (women who were assigned male at birth). 

In case you didn’t know what radical feminism is, this is how Wikipedia explains it:

Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.

Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy by challenging existing social norms and institutions, rather than through a purely political process. This includes challenging the notion of traditional gender roles, opposing the sexual objectification of women, and raising public awareness about such issues as rape and violence against women.

Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s, typically viewed patriarchy as a “transhistorical phenomenon" prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, “not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form" and the model for all others. Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.

Radical feminists locate the root cause of women’s oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (as in liberal feminism) or class conflict (as in anarchist feminism, socialist feminism, and Marxist feminism).

In other words, radical feminism doesn’t relate to being “extremist,” as the word radical implies, but rather to eliminating the root of misogyny and the oppression of women.

Many radical feminists are TERFS, but not all are. I was always told that radical feminists coined the word TERF to separate them from the movement, because transgender exclusion was, in their minds, not part of their movement. I can’t verify this for sure.

Many people do not seem to know this, but there are many branches of feminism. Radical feminism is one of hundreds of schools of thought within feminism. 

Philosophy Basics explains:

Radical Feminism considers the capitalist hierarchy of society, which it describes as sexist and male-based, as the defining feature of women’s oppression. Most Radical Feminists see no alternatives other than the total uprooting and reconstruction of society in order to overthrow patriarchy and achieve their goals.

Separatist Feminism is a form of Radical Feminism, which argues that the sexual disparities between men and women are unresolvable, that men cannot make positive contributions to the feminist movement, and that even well-intentioned men replicate patriarchal dynamics.

Sex-Positive Feminism is a response to anti-pornography feminists who argue that heterosexual pornography is a central cause of women’s oppression, and that sexual freedom (which may or may not involve a woman’s ight to participate in heterosexual pornography) is an essential component of women’s freedom.

Anarcha-Feminism (or Anarchist Feminism) is another offshoot of Radical Feminism and combines Feminist and Anarchist beliefs in which patriarchy is viewed as a manifestation of hierarchy so that the fight against patriarchy is an essential part of the class struggle and the Anarchist struggle against the state.

Black Feminism (or Womanism) argues that sexism, class oppression and racism are inextricably bound together. Alice Walker and other Womanists claim that black women experience a different and more intense kind of oppression from that of white women.

Socialist Feminism (or Marxist Feminism) connects the oppression of women to Marxist ideas about exploitation, oppression and labour. Socialist Feminists see the need to work alongside men and all other groups, and to focus their energies on broad change that affects society as a whole, and not just on an individual basis.

Liberal Feminism (or Individualist Feminism) seeks the equality of men and women through political and legal reform. Liberal Feminists see the personal individual interactions between men and women as the place from which to transform society and argue that no major change to the structure of society is needed.

French Feminism (or Post-Structural Feminism) tends to be more philosophical and more literary, than the more pragmatic Anglophone Feminism. It is less concerned with immediate political doctrine and generally focuses on theories of “the body”. The 1949 treatise “The Second Sex” by the French author and philosopher Simone de Beauvoir (1908 - 1986) is a foundational tract of contemporary Feminism, in which she sets out a feminist Existentialism which prescribes a moral revolution and focuses on the concept of Woman as the quintessential Other, which de Beauvoir identifies as fundamental to women’s oppression.

Eco-Feminism links Feminism with ecology, arguing that the domination of women stems from the same patriarchal ideologies that bring about the domination and destruction of the environment.

Christian Feminism is a branch of feminist theology which seeks to interpret and understand Christianity in light of the equality of women and men, which has been largely ignored historically.

Pro-Feminism refers to support of Feminism without implying that the supporter is a member of the feminist movement. It is usually used in reference to men who are actively supportive of Feminism and of efforts to bring about gender equality.

And this is not, by any means, a complete list. There are many other branches of feminist theory and feminist thought, and many different ways that people can engage in feminist activism.

But TERFS often only acknowledge radical feminism (which they consider the only real feminism) and liberal feminism.

Transgender Advocate explains the warning signs that you as an individual might be a TERF:

I’ve noticed that there seems to be some confusion about what a TERF* is so, here’s a quick guide to help you figure out if you’re a TERF. Chances are that you’re a TERF if you believe that you’re a feminist when you…

1.) Claim that trans women are cis men, that trans men are cis women and purposefully misgender trans people.

2.) Out trans people to employers.

3.) Tell trans women their surgery is about supporting rape culture.

4.) Assert that lesbian-identified trans women can’t be lesbian.

5.) Claim that a world without trans people is preferable.

6.) Find that your anti-trans arguments and the anti-trans arguments of far right-wing groups match.

7.) Assert cis privilege isn’t real; that non-trans people aren’t privileged in a society that’s hostile to trans people.

8.) Claim that gender isn’t real, but the MAAB/FAAB binary is.

9.) Claim that trans surgeries were pioneered by men in service of the patriarchy.

10.) Lie about rape and death threats you’ve received from trans people.

11.) Fearmonger about the rape/violence threat trans women pose to cis women in the women’s restroom.

12.) Assert that trans people transition to satisfy their sexual urges.

13.) Degrade and dehumanize the genitals of trans people.

14.) Work to overturn trans equality protections.

15.) Work to halt access to trans medical care.

16.) Appeal to the Klan Fallacy.

17.) Compare transition to a disgusting Frankenstein-like process.

18.) Claim that trans people transition due to political or social pressures.

19.) Claim that when you work to halt the propagation of anti-feminist stereotypes it’s empowerment, but when trans people work to halt the propagation of anti-trans stereotypes it’s censorship .

20.) Assert that trans women transition because they’re actually gay men and that trans men transition because they’re lesbians wanting to escape the patriarchy.

21.) Threaten actual radical feminist organizations with killing its trans members, and then show up at the radfem event armed with guns.

22.) Beat actual radical feminists for protecting trans women from a TERF bashing.

23.) Mob Lesbian Avengers who have a trans kid with them and then threaten the kid with a knife.

24.) Menace a butch Lesbian radical feminist so much that the radfem decides to start their own inclusive Women’s Music Festival.

25.) Threaten a group of trans women with bodily violence so that they have to start something called Camp Trans in protest.

26.) Promote so-called “bathroom bills” because you think it’s “pro-Lesbian.”

27.) Find that Tea Party Republicans start promoting your TERF rhetoric.

28.) Promote right-wing propaganda mill nonsense to substantiate your hate because they’re the only ones who, in your estimation, are your ideological allies.

29.) Find that right-wing pundits and even hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church defend TERF hate.

30.) Appeal to vaginal odors as being a sexed essence which demarcates an authentic sexed status, so that trans women aren’t actual women because the vaginas of trans women are so smelly that it causes “serious smell issues” while, simultaneously being so non-smelly that a trans woman can never know (as actual women apparently do) what it’s like to have a “big, hairy, smelly vagina.”

Bonus: Pretend that the term “TERF” –popularized, in 2008 by a radical feminist-inclusive feminist community as a way of distinguishing between radical feminists from anti-trans bigots who label themselves “radical feminists”– was actually created by the trans  community in order to slur feminism.

I highly recommend these sources if you would like to know more:

Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism: What Exactly Is It, And Why Does It Hurt?

The Terfs

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism on Rational Wiki

Of these sources, The Terfs will be the most helpful, but it contains a lot of violence and disturbing language. Please stay safe!

3. SWERF

SWERFS are another subgroup of radical feminists, very similar to TERFS. Often, someone who is a TERF will also be a SWERF, but this is not always the case.

Urban Dictionary defines SWERF this way:

Acronym for "Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminist”. A person who espouses to be a feminist but who does not believe that women engaged in ANY form of voluntary sex work should be included in the fight for equality, especially in employment or salary parity. This rabid exclusion of an entire class of women is usually a belief based on misplaced uptight morality.

Rational Wiki explains further:

Sex worker exclusionary radical feminism (also known as SWERF) is yet another offshoot of feminism, one that opposes women’s participation in pornography and prostitution. The term was coined to match that of TERF, as their memberships overlap. Their ideology also overlaps as both subgroups follow a prescriptive, normative approach to feminism; i.e., telling women what to do — TERFs with their gender, and SWERFs with their sexuality.

SWERFs criticize the objectification and exploitation of women within pornography and the sex industry, as well as the violence and abuse that sex workers frequently suffer.

SWERFs typically go completely overboard and dump on sex-workers who chose their profession freely, even in places where it is completely legal and safe, claiming that the sex workers are nothing more than deluded victims (and co-perpetrators) of human trafficking. Much like white supremacists might insist that adoption agencies helping children from the third world find parents in the west are nothing more than deluded extinctionists. This dogmatic hostility to voluntary sex work is known as whorephobia.

Many SWERFS argue that they do not like when men control women’s sexuality. But these same people do exactly the same thing. They attack women for being involved in sex work and/or BDSM/kink, or liking porn. Sometimes they will also police women for what they wear or for having makeup, and will also criticize people for playing dressup with their daughters because the believe this is “sexualizing children” and contributing to “pedophilia culture.”

SJW Wiki uses this quote from Tumblr to explain:

“The mere fact that SWERFs are not actively antagonizing workers in the garment industry, or the domestic labor industry, or the farming and food production industry, or even going after MALE sex workers to the degree that they speak over and attack female sex workers shows that their their actions aren’t about ending incidents of abuse, discrimination and sexual misconduct in the workforce, but about controlling women’s bodies, specifically women’s sexual agency .”

—Musings of a Naked Lady, on Tumblr

Interestingly, when I Google “TERF,” many articles about how awful and hateful TERFS are show up. But when I Google “SWERF,” most of the articles that appear are defending TERFS and SWERFS and arguing that these terms are an attack on women and radical feminism.

I think the moral of the story there is that more people are uncomfortable with transphobia than they are whorephobia, which is sad because many many people see nothing wrong with transphobia.

I hope you found this helpful, anon! Let us know if you have more questions!

💖 Mod Bella 💖

#Bella Blogs #formerly mod v #ableism #activism #feminism #feminist activism #feminist #intersectional feminism #intersectionality #political activism #social justice #feminist theory #feminist thought #gender theory #women and gender #gender equality #anonymous #anonymous ask #ask #asked and answered

[myreflectionmatters-blog]

Intersectional Feminism In the Classroom

(Photo Source: These Are The Fierce Activists Leading The Women’s March On Washington)

On both January 21st and 22nd of this year, three women organized the country’s largest political demonstration, drawing in nearly half a million Americans to The Women's March on Washington and over 3 million nationally. These women - Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez – sought to amplify the voices of all those who find themselves at the mercy of patriarchy’s clenched fists. In addition to the typically advertised causes of feminism including reproductive rights and the gender wage gap, protesters rose signs calling attention to police brutality against black bodies, waved rainbow flags in support of LGBT identifying folks, and called out against the Dakota Access Pipeline. This was a demonstration of third wave feminism. This was intersectional. And despite the valid intra-community criticisms against the actual execution of the Women’s March, I ask what we as educators can take away from this major event and how can we bring what we learned into the classroom?

(Photo Source: Do I Have a Place in Your Movement? On Intersectionality at the Women’s March on Washington)

Intersectionality, coined by scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, is “ a concept to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another”. All of us hold a multitude of identities that are consistently interacting with one another and with the institutions we come into contact with. I, for example, am a white-passing, Puerto Rican, cis gendered, bisexual, able bodied, middle class raised woman. All these identities have directly and indirectly contributed to the opportunities I have had, the worldview I hold of society and my place in it. Change any one of them, and those very opportunities and perspectives change. Even amongst those who share similar identities, we find diversity. And if we know anything about this country’s history, some identities are privileged over others for no reason other than institutionalized ignorance refusing to retire unearned power. As educators, we participate in what has historically been intended to further the oppression of marginalized people, pacifying youth with white washed, patriarchal narratives that erase the injustices forced against them and the generations before them. And as agents of this system, we are especially obligated to reflect on the power bestowed on us over the development of young minds.

When approached to write this piece, I was prompted with the question: Why is it important for educators to understand what intersectional feminism is? The answer, for me, is simple: because we are responsible for the holistic development of youth that ought to not only be prepared to survive oppressive systems or excel in them, but to dismantle them. White feminism, also known as first wave feminism – a debatable term considering the ideology surrounding equality and equity amongst the sexes is one found well throughout history, not limited to white American women – has never represented the voices of women and non men whose gender identity is compounded by other systems of oppression (i.e., class, race, ability, sexual orientation). It is, therefore, incomplete and inapplicable to classrooms that seek to create a generation of liberated thinkers.

So, what is the first step? We look at the syllabus. Often times when discussing feminism, the target audience is young girls and women (again, by default, typically white). But intersectional feminist thought centers the experiences of all non men, especially marginalized demographics such as women of color and trans women. It must be clear that middle class, cis het, able-bodied white men (and women) cannot be the only people that exist in our curriculums. They are not the only authors who have stories to be told. They are not the only inventors with contributions to be celebrated. They are not the only leaders to write essays about. They are not the only survivors of tyranny with pain that cannot afford to be ignored. Only when we actively and intentionally engage our students in material that reflects these realities, which may or may not reflect that of the students, are we using our position as educators to develop and liberate young minds.

What we teach, however, is not the only line of defense against a white supremacist, patriarchal, academic agenda. How we teach is what separates intention from impact, especially when educating vulnerable populations (i.e., non men of color). Intersectionality is primarily concerned with making visible and audible the narratives of non men typically and systemically ignored. For the past three years, I have served as the program director of the L.A.C.E. Youth Leadership Program, educating low income, inner city Puerto Rican youth grades 6-12. I learned rather quickly that my students are far more knowledgeable about their realities than any college textbook could prepare me for. I learned that my voice was not the most important in the room, that they are aware of what matters to them  – and if intersectional feminism teaches us anything, it is that people are the experts on their own lives and it is their voices that ought to speak for their experiences.

But if we are honest, this is not an approach that most students are accustomed to. Educators hold a privileged position over students in that we are the decided expert in the classroom. This can be especially dangerous when educating non men of color, for example, whose voices are often interrupted, undervalued and invalidated. If we are intent on cultivating multiple perspectives, especially within the context of intersectionality, it is vital that educators make an exerted effort to create safe spaces for these students while also allowing for more privileged students (whether that be due to their race or gender) to actively listen to their fellow classmate. Whether that includes house agreements created by the students in the efforts of structuring fair and impactful discussions, or creating seating arrangements that de-emphasize a primary speaker, or encouraging students to make “I” statements so to not speak in generalizations and encourage interpersonal dialogue that builds connections, there are several ways to ensure that all voices are heard and, most importantly, that no marginalized voices are spoken over.

One of the best teaching methods I have found to promote an intersectional agenda – and therefore an agenda rooted in self liberation, equity and community – is to pose students as the teachers. If the goal is to cultivate multiple perspectives within the feminist group, the educators cannot always be the main one talking. I refuse to facilitate every group discussion, especially when the topic is of something that does not directly impact me. In discussions about racism, for example, I - a white passing Boricua woman – would do better to co-facilitate alongside my Afro Boricua female student who is directly impacted by the topic at hand. In addition to cultivating leadership and public speaking skills, both she and her classmates are able to see a young black woman, who not only experiences racism, but sexualized racism at that, at the center of a discussion that has material consequences in her life. In this space, if only in this space, she has the power to structure a conversation about misogynoir amongst a mixed group on her own terms. That is the kind of leadership I want my students to have. That is the kind of feminism I want my students to practice.

I do not see intersectional feminism as some theoretical ideology reserved for dissertations and stimulating conversation amongst the academic elite. It is a tool. One that seeks to personalize the human condition and, if executed properly in the classroom, allows everyone an opportunity to transform what is often a mechanical, academic environment into a space that centers community building amongst youth on the collective desire for self-determination.

MRM Guest Blogger: Roslyn Cecilia Sotero

Roslyn Cecilia Sotero is a graduate of the University of Connecticut with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Human Development and Family Studies. During her undergraduate career, she served as Vice President and President of the Latin American Student Organization (LASO), which provided an array of cultural events and services to students of the Waterbury regional campus.

LASO opened up professional opportunities for Ms. Sotero when she connected with the Hispanic Coalition of Greater Waterbury, Inc. who at the time was looking to create a new youth program. Excited to be working within the local Latinx community, Roslyn drafted a program curriculum that was used as part of a $60,000 state grant application. For the past three years as Program Director of the LACE Youth Leadership Program, Roslyn has catered to the academic, professional, personal and cultural development of youth of color throughout Waterbury's public school system. And as is the vision of the Hispanic Coalition for local youth, Roslyn led the creation of three local art exhibits in CT's first Latinx Art Center, El Centro Cultural, where LACE students took the lead in educating the public about Latinx histories.

In addition to her director position, Roslyn continues to educate Brown and Black communities on social justice issues by serving on several panel discussions across CT, MA and NY specifically in regards to issues close to WOC, education equity, youth-led activism and anti-blackness within Latinx communities.

#intersectional feminism #culturally responsive teaching #social justice #womensmarch

[bespectacledbellman]

Goodbye Greens: Why I Have Left The Green Party

I haven’t always believed in progressive politics. When I was in my early teens I was a little Communist short and stout, here’s my hammer here’s my sickle, comrade. I believed everyone should be paid the same for their work and everyone can have a decent quality of life. That was great until I realised that no matter how hard I did at school I’d end up with the same fate as those who put no effort in. That wasn’t going to work.

So, I deviated further and further right until I was embracing something close to Fascism. Yes, some people are superior, I thought. After all, someone who spends their time learning and bettering themselves deserves to earn more, deserves to have more rights, deserves to have a greater say in how the country works. Again, this logic was fine until I realised that modern society can only exist if people aren’t superior to one another. We need non-academic people happy to work in our shops, farm our land, fix our cars to keep the doctors and teachers and writers and philosophers and artists going. Academia doesn’t equate with capability.

I therefore managed to find my political worldview crushed between these two illogical tenets. What this resulted in was a pragmatic left-liberalism with a few traces of quasi-Fascism. Wondering how to square this circle I endeavoured to approach each political party at my own pace. I found that Labour and the Liberal Democrats could cater to the heart, but their sometimes pie-in-the-sky thinking coupled with the anti-Blairite counterrevolution concludd with senseless policy – if, indeed, policy was ever forthcoming. On the other hand, the Conservatives seemed to be fighting for the centre ground I called home: an economic policy that was, sometimes, unfair and unflinching, but otherwise their policies fostered progressive social reforms. Cameron’s mob would neither give to the poor nor steal from the rich, but what Robin Hood’s merry men did in their own time was no concern of theirs.

I’m not saying that their approach was successful, but four years on I wonder what the UK would look like if Cameron’s planned decade-long ministry would have culminated in.

Politically homeless, therefore, I started to judge the fringes. The Official Monster Raving Loony Party was always a laugh, but unelectable. Independents were fine too, but only at constituency level. But when I read the Green Party manifesto a couple of years ago I was enraptured. The manifesto spoke to me. Save the planet. Tick. Social reforms for equality. Tick. Universal basic income. Tick.

Nuclear disarmament? Once upon a time I was opposed to this. Who throws away their shield, I mused, when someone was pointing an arrow at your head? Of course, this metaphor is completely wrong. It should be why am I standing here holding a Molotov cocktail on the off-chance that someone throws their Molotov cocktail at me? I will still be on fire no matter whether I have one of my own or not. It’s basically revenge, wrapped in the camouflaged garb of national security. Pointless. The Greens want to abolish nuclear weapons. Tick.

Sticking to my personal policy that whenever I found a party that suited me down to the core I would support them, I became a member of the Green Party. Through financial and moral support, I argued their case to friends and family and did what I could do highlight key social and economic issues that the Greens could work to resolve. I even wore t-shirts and buttons to advocate their cause in public.

And it was sunshine and roses, pretty much, until this year they started to be, well, silly, with a few minor incidents and one big one: capitalising on the chaos in America, the Greens came out for slavery reparations.

I just think this is the wrong answer. I also believe it’s insulting to simply pay people off for the suffering caused to slaves. I also felt that the logic behind compensation for past immorality was a slippery slope: where is the line drawn? What about Ireland during the Potato Famine? India? Africa? Look at the chaos caused in China by imperialism. Drawn to its inevitable conclusion, historical compensation would bankrupt the Earth.

It was also not going to do anything to solve modern racism. Say a Green government gives a stipend to people who can prove their ancestors were slaves. I can’t say for certain, but I’d guess that large category would include at least one white millionaire. Eight generations of breeding will diversify the ultimate, current generation – as it should. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel it’s right for a government to pay someone compensation for hardships that they may never have suffered. And for those many people who have suffered hardships, a payout isn’t justice.

As I bleat on about like a noisy sheep from dawn til dusk, education is the way we move forward. Educate our children on race and the importance of loving and respecting one another. Obviously, this is a dream, because we all know people whom we neither love nor respect – but at least teach that there are so many genuine reasons for hating people that race needn’t be a contender. Hate someone for being a bully, a snob, cruel, violent, criminal. Each of those adjectives has been attached to people of every different creed and colour through history. Why compound these valid reasons?

Take all of the money earmarked for reparations and pump it into schools. Give the UK a world-class (or world-beating, which appears to be the term in vogue nowadays) education system that teaches moral and social values, and not just the order of Henry VIII’s unfortunate spouses.

It is, in my view, a cheap ploy to capitalise on what was going on around the world in support of Black communities, to make the Green Party look like the progressive party, when in fact it looks more like throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away. This isn’t the medieval Church, we can’t buy indulgences from our national sins. Only through repentance – education – can we be absolved.

Add to that the other cringe-worthy events that I saw manifest over the Green Party’s own social media page: notably, heralding a local councillor as a champion of his community for standing up for residents, even though he actually hadn’t any idea what he was doing and jeopardised their appeals by ignoring due process. The recent election, where as a member you vote on important roles, including roles for each individual group, but you can only vote for representatives of groups you belong to. Sounds a lot like segregation to me. As a member I should be allowed to vote for the person responsible for LGBTQ+ rights, BAME rights, migrant rights. You do not segregate policy based on membership. A white straight cis man should have the same rights as a Black lesbian trans woman. (If you disagree, read the sentence the other way around and then you will.) As a taxpayer, any decision made on, for instance, women’s rights, will affect me. If the Green Party advocated sanitary products on the NHS, I am fine with that, but as I pay money for the NHS, I should be allowed to choose who comes up with that policy. It’s short-sighted to segregate policy in this way – not that I was surprised, I’d learned that short-sighted policy was our forte.

Instead of focusing on key policies that would help the country: economic policy, ecological policy, foreign policy – all grounded in a realistic view of the world – I instead was swept up in a vortex of one-dimensional thought. Yes, if you’re unhappy with the UK selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that’s fine, but don’t start a discussion about it without mentioning the consequences of the UK not doing that. Do you think China or Russia will wield the same moral pressure on the Saudi government when they inevitably fill the gap left by the UK? A more sensible, multi-faceted policy would be to use all profits from arms sales to fund refugees and migrants from conflicts. Russia would spend its profits on ivory backscratchers.

With all this, I felt forced to leave these daydreamers and return to my pursuit of a party of pragmatic progressivism. The Green Party will never become a government or have influence with policies like these. The best policies come from heart and mind. No party really provides this, and perhaps that’s what’s wrong with modern politics. There is no haven for those in the middle who want equal rights for all but a partial repeal of human rights agreements. There is no base for those who want an enlightened justice system based on forgiveness and rehabilitation, but also desire the return of the death penalty. It may seem that these things are contradictory, but they’re not: they are practical when delivered appropriately. And if you were to sit down with someone and delve into one topic for long enough, you’d find this cognitive dissonance lies within probably all of us at some level. We all sit in the middle of the political spectrum and although we’d always like to do the right thing for the right reasons, most of us acknowledge that we sometimes have to do the wrong thing for the right reasons. We must be pragmatic in our daily lives and we must be pragmatic in our politics.

The Green Party has the progressivism, but not the pragmatism; the ideals, but not the logic; it has my heart, but not my mind. It has my sympathy, but not my vote.