The campaign against Meghan Murphy

314 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..from what i have seen and understand from the streets of vancouver is that progressive movements on the dtes want the sex trade individuals to come into the fold. not stay isolated as they have been for many years. this is begining to happen and from this place i would think the discussion over the differing views could takes place. my greatest fear is if left isolated the sex trade violence will continue and most certainly increase. recently i have read an article from greece that since the austerity regime sex trade is on the rise. this should be a concern to us all as we face harder times. edit

..from ricochet

Violence is refusing to acknowledge that the vulnerability experienced by sex workers is due to the criminalized, stigmatized, devalued and systemically disempowered climate in which they live and work.

Violence is silencing and endangering a small group to uphold the delusions of the ruling class.

Violence is when someone shrugs and asks what sex workers expect after they report harassment from police officers.

Violence is accepting violence as normal and natural, so long as it’s against someone else.

Violence is calling sex workers “whores” who “sell their bodies.” This language suggests that sex workers are things to be purchased rather than lucid, valuable people who make choices, among others, to market and sell services.

This language also keeps the victim stereotype alive. If people are bought and sold as body parts, isn’t that dehumanizing? It would be, if the myth were true. But no sex worker sells their body. They are not passive ragdolls, slaves for the enjoyment of ravenous perverts, as the pornographic imagination might wish to believe. Believing that a certain kind of person is passive and consumable is certainly dangerous, as we have seen in the “for their own good” discourses spewed throughout the passage of Bill C-36.

https://ricochet.media/en/265/sex-workers-demand-rights-and-respect-not-...

Sineed

Petition update - We've reached 2000 signatures

Quote:
May 7, 2015 — Between reaching 1500 and 2000 signatures on this petition Rabble has given a response. I don't know how Meghan or the rest of you feel about it so I can only say how I feel.

The response, in my view, gave quarter to a mob that I liken to Gamergate. They suggested the accusations were serious when any cursory glance at either the petition they created to fire Murphy, the comments on the petition, or the hashtag on Twitter, suggest otherwise.

In today's online climate it's easy for a mob to gather and target a woman. As a person who's familiar with men's rights activists, I've seen this time and time again. In fact, A Voice for Men, the largest MRA website, wrote a piece condemning Murphy and suggesting they use this situation as a way to divide women. This is what happens when you sit on the fence and refuse to fully support a woman.

...

Rabble wrote that Murphy's position on prostitution was controversial. It's not controversial to be against capitalist practices that commodify women's bodies. They also suggested that Murphy's analysis of prostitution was Canada-based when in fact it's a global feminist analysis.

...

Rabble should clearly come out in favour of Murphy's free speech rights and not pander to the small mob. It's bad enough women are socialized into the male gaze, now we can't even write without having a voice on our shoulder whereby we self-censor.

It doesn't take much research to determine that the accusations against Meghan are unfounded, but rabble continues to dither. Have these events triggered an ideological crisis at rabble?

 

Unionist

This isn't about criticism. This isn't about debate. This isn't about "controversy". This is a demand to silence Meghan Murphy from rabble, thus putting an end to any criticism or debate or controversy here.

Rabble must answer this demand in the negative, and do so now.

 

6079_Smith_W

No controversy?

Publications should support their writers by taking responsibility for what they publish. That doesn't mean they aren't open to criticism, or aren't expected to work within an editorial framework.

I agree with the assessment of targetting above. But to deny that there is a controversy, and that some of it is among women who all consider themselves feminist, is hard to believe. Sorry, but there are philosophical divisions here. Denying it doesn't serve any purpose, and it isn't relevant at all to the question of trying to drive someone out of a job and force editorial decisions. And it doesn't help Rabble deal with this situation by expecting them to cater to that denial.

I support her being published here. I also support the rights of others, including other women who consider themselves feminist, to criticize her. Near as I can see that is all being recognized here. Good.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Smith, my issue with the criticisms levelled within the petition is that they are based on a seemingly deliberate misinterpretation based on removal of context and an inability or refusal to process irony. In other words, it isn't based in fact, and has little to do with whatever controversy exists within the discussion of sex work and feminist philosphy. I hope rabble doesn't cave to the vendetta, and that, as U says, answers the demand in the negative.

Northern PoV

Unionist wrote:

This isn't about criticism. This isn't about debate. This isn't about "controversy". This is a demand to silence Meghan Murphy from rabble, thus putting an end to any criticism or debate or controversy here.

Rabble must answer this demand in the negative, and do so now.

Seems like a lively debate to me.  Trying to "define" what is an "acceptable" debate?? Yikes!!

Is the central issue here, not so much whether to silence a voice (there is always babble for a "lonely view" as I well know) ;-)

but rather: Should a voice like this be a paid* editorial voice?  (*I presume)

That seems like a reasonable topic to debate.

 

takeitslowly

Violence is refusing to acknowledge that the vulnerability   experienced by sex workers is due to the criminalized, stigmatized,   devalued and systemically disempowered climate in which they live and   work.

Violence is silencing and endangering a small group to uphold the delusions of the ruling class.

Violence is when someone shrugs and asks what sex workers expect after they report harassment from police officers.

Violence is accepting violence as normal and natural, so long as it’s against someone else.

Violence is calling sex workers “whores” who “sell their bodies.”   This language suggests that sex workers are things to be purchased   rather than lucid, valuable people who make choices, among others, to   market and sell services.

 

 

That makes alot of sense to me. Violence is wrong.

6079_Smith_W

@ TB

Well that is a matter for discussion. When it gets to a disagreement between women of whose ideas are and are not feminist, I'd say that is a controversy.

And while it isn't as grievous as trying to drum someone out of a job, criticizing Rabble for calling a controversy what it is, and expecting them to be a party to that denial is also an attempt at outside control.

And as a number of people have said already, it is irrelevant to the question of trying to force editorial control, and force someone out of a job. It is, however, something that clouds and already cloudy situation.

 

 

takeitslowly

no. we shouldn't force anyone to lose their jobs ... but its okay to express opinons that attack sex workers and expose them to further violence if they don't get out of their job? why don't we discuss about protecting the jobs of sex workers?

 

as a trans woman, i also found Meghan Murphy's commentary on trans women "If women or transwomen were truly allowed to love themselves, I doubt they’d be spending thousands and thousands of dollars sculpting their bodies in order to look like some cartoonish version of “woman,”) to be rooted in  trans-misogyny, oppression, racism,  and cis privilege.

 

If similar writing was directed about a racial group , instead of trans women, there would be no need for this discussion of whether what she said was acceptable or not.

Rabble's idea of anti oppression is ..a work in progress.  btw, I didnt sign any petition, i am not interested in taking away anyone's job or making it difficult for anyone to work or find work, unlike some people.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Takeout slowly, if a POC promoted the idea of cosmetic procedures that make them look more white as empowering, do you honestly think such an assertion would pass without comment?

takeitslowly

i am not aware of Cox having any comestic surgery so i dont see how the comparison is similar at all. I don't think she had comestic surgery to look like a woman..if thats what you mean because that would be  a very hurtful and transphobic comparison.

I have a great trouble when cisgender people speak on behalf of the intent of trans women and erase our experience and voices. Please learn about the woman, she is smart and well spoken and inspiring.

 

 

lagatta

I thought Meghan Murphy was criticising the idea that posing for Playboy was "empowering" for either a biological woman or a transwoman. Fine if you think otherwise, but I'm fairly sure that was her intent. 

As for the ricochet quote, I'll see you ... ricochet, but the French version https://ricochet.media/fr/430/des-filles-comme-des-pizzas Girls (ordered) like pizzas. I disagree that stating that people are commodified in the sex trade means they are "ragdolls" or passive. Just that it is a trade that sees them as disposable commodities, as the slave trade did. 

You don't agree; fine. This is a sharp disagreement within the feminist movement and nobody on either side should be the subject of a witch hunt for their views on this. 

takeitslowly

except of course Laverne Cox did not pose for playboy nor is she a pornstar...

 

breaking news:

shes a trans woman, she posed nude,  that doesnt make her a pornstar or a ragdoll

How dare she loves her body!...without first asking for premission of cisgender feminists that her body is feminist enough to be seen in public. The nerves of transwomen, I tell you.

 

I also love how a cisgender feminist dehumanizes a transwoman and decide she isnt inspiring.

 

What is next? Ralph Nadar telling us barack Obama is not empowering to black people?

http://feministcurrent.com/11632/laverne-coxs-objectified-body-empowers-no-one/

If women or transwomen were truly allowed to love themselves, I doubt they’d be spending thousands and thousands of dollars sculpting their bodies in order to look like some cartoonish version of “woman,” as defined by the porn industry and pop culture. The fact that Cox’s body is seen as “subversive” because she is trans doesn’t change that. Her body doesn’t look subversive. It looks like any other objectified female body, sculpted by surgery and enhanced by Photoshop.

 

 And for the record...Cox never said she had surgery or not..next time, one should at least ask a trans person before assuming they have been "sculpted". Transphobia 101

onlinediscountanvils

jas wrote:

How many of them are active with other concerns within the women's movement?

About 136.

jas

I'm skeptical of a politics that seeks to shut down women's voices. Voices that both define and support the women's movement.

It also appears to me that sex workers and trans activists seem disproportionately concerned with their own particular agendas, to the exclusion of other agendas. Correct me if I'm wrong though. How many of them are active with other concerns within the women's movement?

jas

Thanks, tis. Reading the article that follows is instructive, though.

takeitslowly

I saw Laverne Cox talked in Toronto and she was very focus on trans issue because she was busy talking about trans women of color being discriminated and harassed in public housing and employment, and  murdered on a regular basis in america wihtout recourse..

but actually, she did talk alot about racism because as a black trans woman of color, she is able to explain the Intersection of racism, transphobia and feminism...is that board enough?

 

but for your information, she does talk about feminist issues

 Maybe I will ask Meghan on what I can wear so i can be a feminist instead ..since you know, I am a trans woman..and my body is sculpted and i take artifical hormones

this is a video of her with bell hooks discussing feminism, i am pretty sure she is a fenminist and am not interested in shutting down feminist issue..since she talked about how Bell hooks changed and saved her life...maybe Bell Hooks is not feminist enough

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/08/bell-hooks-laverne-cox_n_5952780.html

 

takeitslowly

I am reminded of this quote froma  trans woman author, Julia Serano:“

 

Sexism occurs when we assume that some people are less valid or natural than others because of their sex, gender, or sexuality; it occurs when we project our own expectations and assumptions about sex, gender, and sexuality onto other people, and police their behaviors accordingly; it occurs when we reduce another person to their sex, gender, or sexuality rather than seeing them as a whole, legitimate person. That is sexism. And a person is a legitimate feminist when they have made a commitment to challenging sexist double standards wherever and whenever they arise. An individual's personal style, mannerisms, identity, consensual sexual partners, and live choices simply shouldn't factor into it.” 
―    Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oMmZIJijgY

 

In this video, while Bell Hooks might disagree with Cox on certain issues, she was definitely more respectful of trans identities than Meghan. and i think there were alot of mutal respect and active listenning between the Hooks and Cox.  They had a discussion.I respect that about Bell Hooks.  We don't need to be talked down to or wrote about as if we are truly sex objects or agent of male oppression.

 Cox acknowleges that trans women can look very diverse and she just happens to  look certain way, is that non feminist?  Do you have to dress a certain to be a feminist?

 

She also didnt attack Cox's "sculpted body" or imply that she looks like a pornstar or a ragdoll.

i think Cox is inspiring because she is claming her own voice and a great spokesperson for trans people, black people, women of color. She is using her role in television to be active in the community. Its brave and responsible of her to do that, not many actresses put their neck out like that.

 Too often, trans women are not getting heard and are seen as one diemnstional figure or agent of male oppression if we dare to look beautiful and have sensuality and sexuality.

Sorry, I am not sorry the society choose to stereotype us. We are done with being shamed or spoken on behalf of.

 

This came out about 8 years ago..I really enjoy the work of Julia serano, a trans woman,  and her book on feminism and trans-misogyny

Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity
http://www.amazon.ca/Whipping-Girl-Transsexual-Scapegoating-Femininity/dp/1580051545

“[U]ntil feminists work to empower femininity and pry it away from the insipid, inferior meanings that plague it - weakness, helplessness, fragility, passivity, frivolity, and artificiality - those meanings will continue to haunt every person who is female and/or feminine.” 
―    Julia Serano,    Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

 

 

 

jas

takeitslowly wrote:

I am reminded of this quote froma  trans woman author, Julia Serano:“

Sexism occurs when we assume that some people are less valid or natural than others because of their sex, gender, or sexuality; it occurs when we project our own expectations and assumptions about sex, gender, and sexuality onto other people, and police their behaviors accordingly; it occurs when we reduce another person to their sex, gender, or sexuality rather than seeing them as a whole, legitimate person. That is sexism. And a person is a legitimate feminist when they have made a commitment to challenging sexist double standards wherever and whenever they arise. An individual's personal style, mannerisms, identity, consensual sexual partners, and live choices simply shouldn't factor into it.” 
―    Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More 

Julia Serano does not appear to understand what sexism is, or why the term is historically important to women. It appears she's simply trying to redefine it. And she's wrong.

jas

In anti-oppression work it is generally recognized that "racism" against whites is not a valid concept, since whites have exercised disproportionate control and influence in disproportionate domains historically. Similarly, it is not valid to erase the issue of gender in a definition of sexism in some attempt to make it an even playing field for all genders. Men have exercised disproportionate power through the eras, and have a history of erasing women's experience systematically. To ignore this reality is ignorant or disingenuous.

Sineed

jas wrote:

In anti-oppression work it is generally recognized that "racism" against whites is not a valid concept, since whites have exercised disproportionate control and influence in disproportionate domains historically. Similarly, it is not valid to erase the issue of gender in a definition of sexism in some attempt to make it an even playing field for all genders. Men have exercised disproportionate power through the eras, and have a history of erasing women's experience systematically. To ignore this reality is ignorant or disingenuous.

Indeed. For women, gender isn't a spectrum, but a hierarchy, with men at the top and women at the bottom. The straightjacket of gender punishes women and gender non-conforming men alike.

I think rather than attacking and attempting to silence feminists, the trans community can find common ground in the problem both share: male violence. As tis points out, transwomen are attacked, raped and killed. Feminists are not the problem here, but as long as feminists and the trans community continue to debate terms, the problem of male violence remains unaddressed and continues unabated.

takeitslowly

jas wrote:

In anti-oppression work it is generally recognized that "racism" against whites is not a valid concept, since whites have exercised disproportionate control and influence in disproportionate domains historically. Similarly, it is not valid to erase the issue of gender in a definition of sexism in some attempt to make it an even playing field for all genders. Men have exercised disproportionate power through the eras, and have a history of erasing women's experience systematically. To ignore this reality is ignorant or disingenuous.

You are correct, which is why its oppressive for a white cisgender feminist to state that Laverne Cox 's self photo shoot as a transgender woman of color is not empowering to anybody.

Laverne Cox's objectified body 'empowers' no one

http://feministcurrent.com/11632/laverne-coxs-objectified-body-empowers-...

"But I'm a black transgender woman. I felt this could be really powerful for the communities that I represent. Black women are not often told that we're beautiful unless we align with certain standards. Trans women certainly are not told we're beautiful. Seeing a black transgender woman embracing and loving everything about herself might be inspiring to some other folks. There's beauty in the things we think are imperfect. That sounds very cliché, but it's true." Cox wanted these pictures for herself, too: "I honestly just want to make myself happy most, and if other people like it, then that's great. If they don't, then I'm still happy." - Laverne Cox

http://www.allure.com/celebrity-trends/nudes-issue/laverne-cox-nude

Sineed

How is being objectified "empowering" in any context?

takeitslowly

How is she being objectified by embracing and showing her body? If a woman makes a decision to pose nude for self affirming purpose, she must be promoting sexual objectification? I disagree. You may not find it empowering, actually I don't particularly care for it, but i think its oppressive for a cisgender white feminist to claim a tran woman of color is empowering no one because she chooses to pose as herself without clothes. Not wearing clothes does not turn someone into an object. It also does not mean that one can start making references about her being like a pornstar or having a sculpted body (artficial).

jas

takeitslowly wrote:

"...Black women are not often told that we're beautiful unless we align with certain standards. Trans women certainly are not told we're beautiful. Seeing a black transgender woman embracing and loving everything about herself might be inspiring to some other folks. There's beauty in the things we think are imperfect. That sounds very cliché, but it's true."

Actually it sounds falsely modest. She knows perfectly well that she has a stunning appearance. And one that conforms to the fashion and entertainment world's beauty standards for women. I don't fault her for wanting to look gorgeous. And if she finds that empowering, awesome. Just don't pretend you're empowering others by adopting those standards for yourself. If others say you empower them, fine again. But some women are saying, "No, that doesn't empower me, so please don't speak for me. And btw, there's a history of feminist analysis regarding the male gaze and socially imposed standards of beauty and conduct on women, and we're allowed to talk about that." And if Cox is a feminist, she and her supporters, need to respect that.

Lots of role models exist for women -- and black women -- and trans women -- that inspire women in a variety of ways. It is hardly groundbreaking for a transwoman to align with the fashion industry's ideal for female desirability. Just like it's not groundbreaking for a non-trans woman to adopt those same beauty ideals.

takeitslowly

No one, including Cox,  is asking anyone to feel empowered , I am contesting Meghan Murphy 's claim that no one should be  empowered by Laverne Cox.  I would agree with you if all Lavern Cox did is to pose nude all day long and do nothing else. That would be uninspiring indeed. I was actually very inspired by most of what she did , and presenting herself in such an intelligent and shameless way and being the first trans woman of color to appear on the cover of Time's magazine.

 

It doesn't matter if you think she is stunning. The reality is that many trans women of color carry a huge sense shame about our body.

 

“I have often carried tremendous amounts of shame about my identity,” Ms. Cox said. “But today, I stand before you claiming my womanhood in a social context.”

 

I think her nude shot is liberating and signify that trans women of color do not need to hide anymore. I like it.

I don't believe being nude makes us lesser of a feminist.

 

And it doesnt' matter how stunning we might look on a photo, we still experience being devalued and dehumanized.

She spoke of this “I’ve experienced so much street harassment living in New York. There have been so many moments I’ve walked down the street and been called a man, called the f word—,” she says. “I was kicked on the street before my finale for I Want to Work for Diddy... I could easily have been CeCe.”

She used the death of Islan Nettles—a trans woman who was beaten to death by male cat-callers who realized she was transgender—as an example of the fear of discovery and violence that many trans people live with.

“I am still sometimes afraid to leave my apartment…. I often do not feel safe,” Ms. Cox said. “I wake up and think, ‘Will today be the day that I am a victim, a survivor? What if I don’t survive?’”

She used the death of Islan Nettles—a trans woman who was beaten to death by male cat-callers who realized she was transgender—as an example of the fear of discovery and violence that many trans people live with.

“I am still sometimes afraid to leave my apartment…. I often do not feel safe,” Ms. Cox said. “I wake up and think, ‘Will today be the day that I am a victim, a survivor? What if I don’t survive?’”

 

takeitslowly

No one, including Cox , is asking anyone to feel empowered , I am contesting Meghan Murphy 's claim that no one should be  empowered by Laverne Cox.  She is the one who does not speak for me or any trans women of color,  for that matter.

I would agree with you if all Lavern Cox did is to pose nude all day long and do nothing else. That would be uninspiring indeed. I was actually very inspired by most of what she did, and presenting herself in such an intelligent and shameless way and being the first trans woman of color to appear on the cover of Time's magazine.

 

It doesn't matter if you think she is stunning. The reality is that many trans women of color carry a huge sense shame about our body regardless of how "normal" it may look to outsiders.

 

“I have often carried tremendous amounts of shame about my identity,” Ms. Cox said. “But today, I stand before you claiming my womanhood in a social context.”

 

I think her nude shot is liberating and signify that trans women of color do not need to hide anymore. I like it.

I don't believe being nude makes us lesser of a feminist or discredit our humanity or dignity.

 

And it doesnt' matter how stunning we might look on a photo, we still experience being devalued and dehumanized.

She spoke of this “I’ve experienced so much street harassment living in New York. There have been so many moments I’ve walked down the street and been called a man, called the f word—,” she says. “I was kicked on the street before my finale for I Want to Work for Diddy... I could easily have been CeCe.”

She used the death of Islan Nettles—a trans woman who was beaten to death by male cat-callers who realized she was transgender—as an example of the fear of discovery and violence that many trans people live with.

“I am still sometimes afraid to leave my apartment…. I often do not feel safe,” Ms. Cox said. “I wake up and think, ‘Will today be the day that I am a victim, a survivor? What if I don’t survive?’”

 

 

 

quizzical

ffs, i bet you more women were killed in the GVA this week end for the crime of being women, than any transgender female has in Canada over the last 5 years.

MegB

quizzical wrote:

ffs, i bet you more women were killed in the GVA this week end for the crime of being women, than any transgender female has in Canada over the last 5 years.

I'm sure that's true, but you have to look at it per capita. Most women are cis-gender but in the female trans community it is a small but significant stat. Besides, it's not an accurate comparison. Women being killed for being women is one thing. Trans women being killed for being trans is quite different.

quizzical

i agree with your per capita comment...but i'm not sure about the accuracy of trans women being different comment...will think on it.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

takeitslowly wrote:

i am not aware of Cox having any comestic surgery so i dont see how the comparison is similar at all. I don't think she had comestic surgery to look like a woman..if thats what you mean because that would be  a very hurtful and transphobic comparison.

I have a great trouble when cisgender people speak on behalf of the intent of trans women and erase our experience and voices. Please learn about the woman, she is smart and well spoken and inspiring.

I was talking about Janet Mock, who Murphy cited in an article about bell hooks' take on a variety of feminist issues.  Mock has had a lot of cosmetic surgery and advocates it as empowering. The piece was linked to in the OP of the other thread about the petition against Murphy.

Here's my take on cosmetic surgery for cis and trans women - If there's something you feel needs to be modified and corrected, then go for it.  But the kind of cosmetic sculpting that many women in entertainment go through isn't so much empowering to women as it is conforming to a gender ideal.  This isn't empowering to women in general, even if you find it personally beneficial.  From what I read, that's the point that Murphy was attempting to make, and one that I largely agree with.

As for the rest of what's passed since I last checked in...  So much to unpack...

I think it's possible to love your body without publishing nude photographs.  I can understand why Cox went that route and why she would find it empowering - but that doesn't make it inherently feminist.  In a lot of respects, it's a step forward for trans women, but helps to reinforce some of the body expectations, most of which are not realistic for most of us, that feminism attempts to combat.  It's not wrong or hateful for Murphy to point that out. 

I have trouble with the idea that one is never to talk about flaws in logic or contradictions within any kind of intersectional feminism.  How are we to understand each other if we don't?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I don't think you need to characterize Murphy's commentary - of either Mock or Cox - as an attack. She is looking at their actions and what they say and talking about some of the flaws in the argument, especially when you look at the larger picture of what feminism is trying to accomplish.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I'm missing the violence in her language. Any criticism at all does not equate to violence. I also think that Cox has a terrific amount of privilege herself. I think the idea of hormone treatment and surgery is different for trans women and should be see in a different light. I also understand that the embrace of feminine stereotypes is different for trans women. But how that works in terms of fitting within feminism is an important conversation, one that we can't have if any discussion at all is characterized as violence.

takeitslowly

All i am doing is speaking up against anti- trans violent language. I read somewhere that feminism is a radical notion that women are people. Trans women are people with a medical condition, which often requires them to take hormones and/or have surgery. Meghan Murphy needs to understand her commentary about the fake bodies of trans women  contribute to the hatred and violence attacks in the trans community, particularly trans women of color.

Anti-trans violence is killing young black and Latina woman across the country

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/five-transgender-women-color-h...

 

Laverne Cox never championed having surgery, she , in fact, refuse any talk of surgery when asked. And fyi, she isnt a porn star or a sex worker!  (would she be less of a human being if she was?)

Meghan Murphy simply uses her cis privilege to pick on a trans woman of color simply because she posed nude and than used anti trans violence language to suggest that the bodies of trans women are fake and artificial and thereby dehumanizing our lives and our voices in a few paragraphs. Its pretty revolting. I am suprise I am the first one to point this out on this forum that should be about valuing the live and experience of each woman.

Sineed

tis wrote:
Meghan Murphy needs to understand her commentary about the fake bodies of trans women  contribute to the hatred and violence attacks in the trans community, particularly trans women of color.

This is an oft-repeated trope, but I don't know how accurate it is to say that radical feminist thought is responsible for anti-trans violence. I doubt the people who kill transwomen have read radical feminist literature. The real problem is violent men, not women. Blaming women for male violence is misogynistic.

Timebandit wrote:
I'm missing the violence in her language. Any criticism at all does not equate to violence.

Like that.

MegB wrote:
Women being killed for being women is one thing. Trans women being killed for being trans is quite different.

There actually are no reliable stats on people being killed for being trans because such stats are not kept. (I checked.) The stats on violence against women, however, are irrefutable. Here is one example:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/09/10/3565601/domestic-violence-cost/

Quote:
Domestic violence kills more people than wars, study finds

According to the researchers, roughly nine people are killed in domestic disputes for every one person who dies in a civil war. About 769 million women are the victims of domestic violence at some point in their lives, and 290 million children are subject to violence in their homes.

 

Bärlüer

[deleted]

takeitslowly

Sineed wrote:

tis wrote:
Meghan Murphy needs to understand her commentary about the fake bodies of trans women  contribute to the hatred and violence attacks in the trans community, particularly trans women of color.

This is an oft-repeated trope, but I don't know how accurate it is to say that radical feminist thought is responsible for anti-trans violence. I doubt the people who kill transwomen have read radical feminist literature. The real problem is violent men, not women. Blaming women for male violence is misogynistic.

Attacking the body of a trans woman because she has to take hormones and/or have surgery because of her condition is body shaming. Body shaming is violence against women.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Can you please quote where she did that? With a link? I'm having difficulty finding it.

takeitslowly

Quote:
There actually are no reliable stats on people being killed for being trans because such stats are not kept. (I checked.)

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act, is an American Act of Congress, passed on October 22, 2009...it expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability

...it requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to track statistics on hate crimes based on gender and gender identity (statistics for the other groups were already tracked)

I cant tell you how reliable the data is but they are kept in the U.S.

takeitslowly

In her blog, Murphy wrote, "Is it really a sign that we “love everything about ourselves” if we alter our bodies through surgery or horomens?

Murphy writes further,

"If women or transwomen were truly allowed to love themselves, I doubt they’d be spending thousands and thousands of dollars sculpting their bodies in order to look like some cartoonish version of “woman,” as defined by the porn industry and pop culture. The fact that Cox’s body is seen as “subversive” because she is trans doesn’t change that. Her body doesn’t look subversive. It looks like any other objectified female body, sculpted by surgery and enhanced by Photoshop."

http://feministcurrent.com/11632/laverne-coxs-objectified-body-empowers-...

takeitslowly

Murphy writes

In her blog, Murphy wrote, "Is it really a sign that we “love everything about ourselves” if we alter our bodies through surgery or horomens?

"If women or transwomen were truly allowed to love themselves, I doubt they’d be spending thousands and thousands of dollars sculpting their bodies in order to look like some cartoonish version of “woman,” as defined by the porn industry and pop culture.

http://feministcurrent.com/11632/laverne-coxs-objectified-body-empowers-...

Laverne Cox never said she had any surgery. Its not her fault or anyone's fault that we are trans and we take hormones or have surgery for our condition. Her words are an attack on our bodies and our experience.

We are not cartoonish , we are not fake or artifical or trying to pass as some fraud of a woman. We dont have to be shameful about our body just because we tranistioned due to medical reasons.

Someone also wrote about the article that she " notices the dogwhistle trans-misogyny throughout the article such as putting “women” in quotes, which is successful in that the article attracts even more blatant hateful transphobes in the comments section who misgender Cox and gleefully trash her further. (And notice that while Murphy challenges many other comments, she never responds to these blatantly hateful comments, which are heavily upvoted on her site)."

I agree

onlinediscountanvils

I think anyone who has read Murphy can see how deliberate she is when it comes to walking as close to the line as possible without crossing over into blatant transmisogyny and whorephobia. That's why it's hard to pin her down with exact quotes, because she relies on dog whistles and her readers' comments in order to maintain plausible deniability. [url=http://www.donotlink.com/evuk]She published an openly transphobic man on her blog[/url]. [url=https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/592490809087393792]Got called on it[/url]. Denied it, [url=https://twitter.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/592494759777701888]calling it "lies"[/url]. Then, when presented with [url=https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/592491192400613377]the evidence[/url] ([url=https://twitter.com/JenderFatigue/status/592469298737782787]among many[/url]), rather than apologize and disavow herself of his transphobic views, she simply dropped the issue without acknowledging it, while continuing to promote his piece on her blog.

This is a mess of rabble's own making, but I do recognize why it's now going to be difficult to resolve this to anyone's satisfaction.

Sineed

Jonah Mix isn't transphobic; he is gender-critical, a growing movement that takes aim against the straightjacket of gender roles that are so damaging to women and gender non-conforming people. Rather than embracing gender roles, gender critical people aim to destroy the concept of gender altogether so that people can find self-acceptance. I think it may be rather idealistic to imagine a world free from gender stereotypes, but I don't see anything hateful about its basic ethos.

I am getting the sense that rabble is caught in the middle of a rather significant schism in feminist thought and progressive ideologies in general.

Pondering

MM is saying that women posing nude is not empowering for women, including trans women. Most women, trans or otherwise, can't aspire to being half as gorgeous as Cox is in that picture which was probably photoshopped just like all other photos of women are. Models, supposedly the most beautiful women in the world, are getting plastic surgery, MM didn't use the word cosmetic.

It is not empowering to women to see all these unattainable body ideals. That Cox is trans does complicate the analysis in the sense that seeing a trans woman so accepted by the mainstream could be inspiring, but just like other women the opposite can easily occur and be even more serious for trans women most of whom could never hope to look half as good as Cox fully clothed, not because they are trans, but because images of women who are physically altered, and photoshoped on top of it, into cartoon characters are unattainable for ALL women. How is creating these unreal images feminist? They aren't feminist, being a trans woman doesn't make them feminist.

Cox may find it personally empowering as a trans person to flaunt her womanhood, prove to the world that she is not only a real woman, she is at the top of the heap. But it is not empowering "as a woman" to present yourself to the male gaze as a physical object to be admired.

I do think that to some extent trans women are in a quandry with feminism even when they are feminist. In my youth I was extremely feminine, very focused on my appearance. It was the major measure of my self-worth. I was praised for being a good hostess, for niceness, how I dressed and how I wore make-up. Had you asked me at the time I would have said it was my choice. I liked being seen as a pretty social butterfly. I was frequently told that I looked like a doll, it was the highest praise I ever got. When I was eighteen I wouldn't leave the house without being in full make-up. base, light and dark contouring, foundation, 3 tone eye-shadow, curled and triple mascaraed eye lashes, lip liner, lipstick brushed on, and finally a finishing powder to set everything.

Over the decades I have changed into a completely different person. I want to look clean and appropriately dressed by I haven't worn make-up in decades except for the odd lipstick on special occasions and even then I never remember to reapply. In my youth I was performing female even though I would have sworn up and down that it was all my choice, that I was born "feminine", that I was just naturally a girly girl and wouldn't want to be anything else, it was innate. 

Now I know better. I wasn't born that way I was made that way.

Regardless of where the science is at trans women believe they are the opposite gender to that assigned at birth. Unfortunately, like all other women, that means "performing female" to some extent. Not because they are trans women, but because they are women and all women have been trained to "perform female". So, when trans women wear cosmetics, they are performing female just like the rest of us, but because they are trans the accusation that they are performing female carries a different much more hurtful connotation.

Many trans women were not trained to perform female but even those who were not were bombarded with images and information about what women are like, so identifying as women (or girls) they would naturally be drawn, just as I was, to that which is considered feminine. Unfortunately that often comes with stories of "I always loved pink" or "I liked wearing my mothers cosmetics" or "I liked dolls not trucks" presented as some sort of proof that they were misgendered at birth. The exact notions feminists have been working to eradicate.

Cox performed womanhood just like all the other women who do exactly the same thing. MM is saying it doesn't become empowering just because the woman is trans. She is still presenting the same cartoon figure of womanhood that other women are also presenting.

I think the accusations against MM are way overblown, but not without provocation. I reject the term "cis" woman because I reject the notion that I was born gendered. Other people have no right to impose that identity on me. Likewise, Trans women self-identity should also be respected. In using the term transwomen rather than trans women MM is disrespecting their self-identity every bit as much as calling me a cis woman.

Regardless of where the science is we do know some things. Only a tiny percentage of trans people regret their decision. Non-transitioned trans people have a horrendous rate of self-harm and suicide. The treatment that works is transitioning. Transitioning is an arduous process emotionally and physically. 

I find it difficult to believe that MM used the term transwomen accidently given that she is a writer and a feminist. I take it from that she doesn't accept transwomen as women philosophically which is fair but out of all the  sexist celebrities she could have chosen to criticize she chose Cox.

The feminist theory that we are born non-gendered is a direct contradiction of trans identity which says that we are, and theirs is mismatched. The nature versus nurture battle has been going on forever. Trans people claim there is - some - nature involved, something feminists can't prove isn't so. It really doesn't matter. We know there is tons and tons of nurture genderizing us. Just what we have identitied is sure to take a few centuries to get rid of. Whether or not we are born gendered is a philosophical question. It has no practical value. Statistics prove that trans people need to live as their self-identified gender to be healthy. Medical advances will continue to be made to help them to do so. We don't need to "prove" that we aren't born even a tiny bit gendered. We can start with proving we aren't born loving pink. Trans women aren't impeding that even when they claim that as an indication of their femininity. There are countless other women doing the same thing and far worse.

Nobody is going to decide femininity is innate based on the existence of trans women.  People are still arguing that gayness is a choice. Trans people are overwhelmingly considered to have a mental illness, their surgeries considered elective, the public resistant to paying through medicare. Trans women are no threat to the feminist movement. We should embrace them as our sisters.

Technically I agree with MM on some aspects of her argument, I don't agree with her approach to tackling the issue especially declaring that black trans women aren't empowered by it. They may not be empowered by it from a feminist perspective but from a trans perspective portrayals of trans people living happy successful lives it breaks down prejudices. Same goes for race.

 

onlinediscountanvils

Sineed wrote:

Jonah Mix isn't transphobic; he is gender-critical, a growing movement that takes aim against the straightjacket of gender roles that are so damaging to women and gender non-conforming people. Rather than embracing gender roles, gender critical people aim to destroy the concept of gender altogether so that people can find self-acceptance.

 

Riiiiight... I'm sure his insistance on misgendering trans folk - [url=http://www.donotlink.com/evp8]even in death[/url] - is just the tough love approach to help them ultimately achieve "self-acceptance".

I know homophobes, racists, and misogynists who would bristle at those labels too.

[url=http://www.transadvocate.com/gender-critical-feminism-the-roots-of-radic... Critical Feminism, the roots of Radical Feminism and Trans oppression[/url]

jas

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
[url=http://www.donotlink.com/evuk]She published an openly transphobic man on her blog[/url]. [url=https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/592490809087393792]Got called on it[/url]. Denied it, [url=https://twitter.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/592494759777701888]calling it "lies"[/url]. Then, when presented with [url=https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/592491192400613377]the evidence[/url] ([url=https://twitter.com/JenderFatigue/status/592469298737782787]among many[/url]),

I followed the links you provided because I genuinely wanted to see what was so objectionable. I'm sorry, I  really do not see it. Especially in the twitter posts which you have labeled in a way that doesn't even remotely relate to their content. If you want to convince people, shouldn't you be a lot more direct in what you reference?

I\m not a fan of the Jonah article, but I note it is not an article attacking trans people. It is attacking the myths and modes of a culture that still marginalizes trans people, esp those who make no attempt to fit into the gender binaries.

jas

The issue of how and why people subscribe to gender binaries has been a main topic of feminism for several decades. Trans people who subscribe to gender binaries seem to think that feminists should suddenly stop having that conversation because it focuses uncomfortable attention on the personal gender presentation choices of some trans people. Is this a realistic (never mind respectful) expectation?

Pondering

takeitslowly wrote:

“I am still sometimes afraid to leave my apartment…. I often do not feel safe,” Ms. Cox said. “I wake up and think, ‘Will today be the day that I am a victim, a survivor? What if I don’t survive?’”

Welcome to the world of women. I never go anywhere alone where I could be attacked. Being trans means more likely to be attacked by some, but less likely by others. Just like all other women trans women are more or less attackable based on personal circumstances but none are immune, not even really old women.

 

lagatta

Actually, I suspect transpeople are even more likely to be victims of violence, because they are "different" and macho men can't tolerate that. I have no proof, but I think the vast majority on transpeople are by male aggressors. I have a gay male friend iin my neighbourood who isn't trans, but he is what would be called "une grande folle", very flamboyant in his gayness, and he really gets shit and threats of violence from a certain type of guys.

Paladin1

lagatta wrote:

Actually, I suspect transpeople are even more likely to be victims of violence, because they are "different" and macho men can't tolerate that. I have no proof, but I think the vast majority on transpeople are by male aggressors. I have a gay male friend iin my neighbourood who isn't trans, but he is what would be called "une grande folle", very flamboyant in his gayness, and he really gets shit and threats of violence from a certain type of guys.

I don't think it's because they are different per se. Well, maybe, I'm not too sure how to word it.   I'd say I look like that type (you mentioned) and am surrounded by quite a few of them so I hear it a lot.  I really think it's self-esteem issues and those types want people around them to visually see that they are picking on them or giving them a hard time. I feel like those types think it's expected of them to behave that way and they don't know any better (which obviously isn't an excuse). 

 

 

Pages