The campaign against Meghan Murphy

314 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
This thread is ample proof that Megan Murphy is being persecuted for her political beliefs not bigotry.

I think it's equally true that when and where she's supported, it's also for her political beliefs, not some sort of abstract principle.

Well, no.

I disagree vehemently with Murphy's "political belief" opposing decriminalization.

But the move to ban her from rabble.ca was quite sufficient to cause me to tell rabble.ca that I would leave this place, and no longer support it financially, if they acceded to the despotic demand contained in the so-called "petition".

So I, for one, defended the "abstract principle" of letting the different viewpoints have their say here. Can't speak for others.

What about you?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I disagree vehemently with Murphy's "political belief" opposing decriminalization.

Fair enough.  I actually did consider adding "(exception: Unionist)".  But I do think you're an exception.

Quote:

So I, for one, defended the "abstract principle" of letting the different viewpoints have their say here. Can't speak for others.

What about you?

I would agree.  It very quickly seemed to me that rabble was being pressured from both sides to declare one or the other to be the One Truth, and I'm glad they resisted that.

Had they decided to fire her, though, I'd have probably pointed out that Audra was fired for less, and more publicly too.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Brava takeitslowly! I really had no idea (and no horse in the race) as to how to address this issue. One thing I know is that the schism it has caused among feminists is heartbreaking and serves no one.

takeitslowly

hookstrapped wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

The policing of black women's bodies and their sexuality is well documented.

How dare a trans woman of color showed  PG nudity on a woman's beauty magazine  and say she found it empowering?

 

No, it empowers no one, Meghan Murphy said, a white woman who has never been trans.

 

She knows best I guess. I am really glad she spoke up on behalf of black women and the trans community. I hope she continues to speak out on behalf of trans women of color and describe our lives , our experience and our intent because thats feminism.

It's the same way she speaks about how sex work harms sex workers.  But knowing she's on shaky ground speaking for others with whom she lacks critical shared experience, she expands the argument to how trans women and sex workers (or thinly veiling the object of her derision, how trans women and sex workers succumb to exploitative objectification) harm women generally.  It's similar to how the Christian right objects to how gay marriage harms traditional marriage -- using stigma against and fear of the "other" combined with tautological arguments in place of evidence.  Abolitionists have quite a lot in common with the Christian right, including their shared sense of persecution when others don't quietly accept their bigotry.

                                         Right on. Feminism shouldn’t be one size fits all.

 

It very much reminds me of western countries imposing their so called democracy on other countries like Iraq or what not, but ignoring the local needs and culture and diverse experience of those who need to be “saved”.

 

The unspoken privilege that comes with being a white cisgender feminist cannot be overlooked, I can’t stress how important it is to respect the lived experience of trans women of color, and sex workers. Many of us do not come come from places of privileges, or a prestigious university or background an we desperately need figures like Laverne Cox and others to speak out and give a human face to our community.

 

For someone to paint everyone with the same paint brush as if the body of pamela anderson and Laverne Cox come from the same places of female objectifcation because they share similar body shapes  (which i dont even believe is the case), its ignorance and it silences important voices that need to be respected and included among feminism. I dont belive any community needs to be thrown under the bus so someone can make a point about male patraichery.

Too often, we are often being talked down to, I believe feminism can only progress when we drop our assumption and one size fits all solution, and make spaces to listen and empower the voices of those who have intersectionality (races, poor , trans , sex worker. migrant workers) .

I don’t have a position as to whether if Murphy should be banned or not, what I learned from this experience is that rabble.ca/babble needs a lot of work in making the spaces welcoming so that people of color, trans women , sex workers, can feel like this is a place for them to be listened to and respected and ultimately feel empowered as a member of the society.

 

No organization can truly be inclusive and diverse if the population sustaining it is not diverse. Rabble.ca is no exception.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The unspoken privilege that comes with being a white cisgender feminist cannot be overlooked, I can’t stress how important it is to respect the lived experience of trans women of color, and sex workers.

In regard to white, female-born women pontificating on the experiences of transwomen (either of colour or of paleness) you could certainly try to use and promote the term "Meghansplaining".  Smile

lagatta

Well, I could counter that with a lot of writings on the other side of the debate by Indigenous women, but the whole debate is fairly pointless at this moment.

Pondering

The article:

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

The image:

The comment:

The day before we had done the Essence Black Women in Hollywood luncheon with a bunch of the ladies from Orange Is the New Black. So that night we went out to dinner,” Cox said. “I was like, I want to have mac ’n’ cheese. I know I have a nude photo shoot tomorrow, but I want to have mac ’n’ cheese tonight. I don’t like to talk too much about this, but I was my biggest weight during that photo shoot, and so I was like, Gotta love yourself. You got to embrace all of this.

Megan's comments:

This was deemed “radical self-acceptance” by The Cut. Ok, so we are to believe that, 1) Achieving a “perfect” body, as defined by a patriarchal/porn culture, through plastic surgery, then presenting it as a sexualized object for public consumption equates to “radical self-acceptance”? 2) Eating food is “radical?”

The through plastic surgery part was unnecessary and made assumptions about Cox. The rest did not. Posing nude while representing the patriarchal/porn culture image of women is not radical self-acceptance. Throwing caution to the winds and having a mac ’n’ cheese for dinner the night before is not radical self-acceptance. Radical self-acceptance would be not even considering the next day's photoshoot as a reason not to eat a mac ’n’ cheese.

Here are some more pictures of women doing the same thing although not entirely nude.

Beyonce

Kim Kardashian

and Jennifer Lopez

These women are all representing the patriarchal/porn culture image of women. What MM is saying is that Cox is not an exception. She is just like all these other women therefore her image is no more empowering than their images.

Megan states:

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.

Women in general not just trans women seek 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.

Cox looks like any other gorgeous women therefore there is nothing subversive about the photo. It depicts the same cartoonish version of women presented by women like Kim Kardashian, Katy Pery etc.

If Cox is a woman like any other than she is no more immune from criticism than they are.

6079_Smith_W

"The same thing?"

Never mind that there is a big difference between a simple nude and someone wearing half a million in makeup and stones on a red carpet, the fact that Cox is a transwoman is a big part of the power of that first photograph.

People are certainly free to interpret it and criticize, but it is far from all the same thing.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/as-women-bare-all-in-feminist-protest-g...

While Greer's article focuses on nudity as protest, and the dispute over Cox is whether it is empowerment or exploitation, there is also the question of how free women can be if they can't make simple personal choices without having them analyzed and politicized to death.

(and yeah, I know they ARE political, but it is yet another thing that us straight white guys don't have to worry about that those who supposedly have to represent oppressed groups are are always expected to answer for in everything they do)

"You're a disgrace to all the straight white guys" said no one, ever.

 

takeitslowly

I apologize on behalf of laverne cox  that her body is not subversive enough. I am so sorry our body is not making a positive visual statement for you. Wait, whos objectifying who? 

Anyways, Where is her penis? Does she even have one? She better embrace it if she has it. Show us the goods, or the neo vagina better looks "realistic", and not too surgically enhanced. We need to know if shes going to pose nude! Maybe she can shave her hair and go bald next time.

Next time a trans woman pose , make sure theres no make up ,and  stop taking hormones (who need them anyways? ) and no shaving of body hair.

 

It will be ugly and it may satisfy your feminist ideals.

I am glad you think she is beautiful, at least you don't think she looks cartoonish.

 

On a serious note: I know some trans women who have really done alot of surgeries, and are very insecure with their look. Laverne Cox is not conventional by any means, she is no skinny woman and she is very tall , so wearing heels actually make her stand out more as a trans woman than not wearing heels. I think shes just proud of being a black trans woman, being openly trans take alot of courage and thats radical. I understand if you don't get that.  I am sorry (not sorry) she doesn't look like a man. I really don't know what you expect her to look like.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

"The same thing?"

Never mind that there is a big difference between a simple nude and someone wearing half a million in makeup and stones on a red carpet, the fact that Cox is a transwoman is a big part of the power of that first photograph.

People are certainly free to interpret it and criticize, but it is far from all the same thing.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/as-women-bare-all-in-feminist-protest-g...

While Greer's article focuses on nudity as protest, and the dispute over Cox is whether it is empowerment or exploitation, there is also the question of how free women can be if they can't make simple personal choices without having them analyzed and politicized to death.

(and yeah, I know they ARE political, but it is yet another thing that us straight white guys don't have to worry about that those who supposedly have to represent oppressed groups are are always expected to answer for in everything they do)

"You're a disgrace to all the straight white guys" said no one, ever.

Has anyone here said these women are a disgrace or anything even close to that, or even wrong to look as they do?  Cox's photo was presented as being empowering, MM disagreed. 

"as defined by the porn industry and pop culture"

Are we not allowed to criticize pop culture as it relates to women?

Are you aware that women can be against spike heels from a political perspective and still wear them?

Cox's photo was not "a simple nude".  Seen any "simple nudes" of men recently?  That Cox was nude and the other women clothed in the example I used makes no difference to the impact of the photos in terms of reflecting the ideal woman as envisioned by our patriarchal society.

6079_Smith_W

It's not on my say-so, but I did just acknowledge that people are free to criticize (that is what started all this in the first place, no?).

I was serious about questioning your comparison. We can certainly disagree, but they seem polar opposites to me.  Funny you should mention nudes of men; as it happens I see them on an almost daily basis online. In comparison to most of them, in fact, in comparison to many images of women I see in public that pic of Cox is simple and far less an example of objectification, as some call it.

Pondering

takeitslowly wrote:
I apologize on behalf of laverne cox  that her body is not subversive enough. I am so sorry our body is not making a positive visual statement for you. Wait, whos objectifying who? 

Do you want us to consider Cox a woman or not? It isn't Cox's body that is or isn't subversive it's the way in which it is presented. Something doesn't have to be subversive to make a positive visual statement. It is not objectifying Cox to reject the notion that posing nude in this manner is empowering to any woman. Some women disagree and say that images of Lopez, Beyonce and Kim Kardashian are empowering.

I am beginning to wonder if you are objectifying Cox turning her into a religous figure to be worshipped and never criticized, as though she isn't human.

takeitslowly wrote:
Anyways, Where is her penis? Does she even have one? She better embrace it if she has it. Show us the goods, or the neo vagina better looks "realistic", and not too surgically enhanced. We need to know if shes going to pose nude! Maybe she can shave her hair and go bald next time.

That's a very crass disrespectful way to discuss Cox's body and has nothing to do with this conversation.

takeitslowly wrote:
Next time a trans woman pose , make sure theres no make up ,and  stop taking hormones (who need them anyways? ) and no shaving of body hair.

I rarely wear make-up anymore. I'm not against it I just find it a waste of time. I do shave my armpits. I don't need to shave my legs but if I did I definitely would do it or wear pants. If I had a masectomy I don't know if I would get implants or not, (yes when I was younger, now I don't think so) but if I did I would definitely pick the size I wanted regardless of what I was born with. I admire women who don't shave their legs and still wear shorts and dresses. I think doing that empowers women. Nothing wrong with shaving my legs, but it isn't an empowering act.

Trans women take hormones and have surgery for medical reasons. It makes sense that they are going to attempt to reflect the current cultural norm for what beautiful women look like. I think it was unfair to mention hormones and surgery in relation to trans women because with a trans woman those are medical procedures not purely cosmedic. It is not the same as other women wanting larger breasts or getting face lifts not that they should be judged negatively either.

As others have mentioned trans women are often portrayed stereotypically as drag queens or assumed to be mentally disturbed, deluded men who could never really pass if they were naked. Cox's picture is subversive because in it we see not only a woman, but a woman at the height of her beauty and desirability.

Trans women already have a huge burden in fighting to be recognized as women in the first place. It's not fair to fault them for taking steps to fit in with cultural norms. While Cox's photo is not empowering to women in general that doesn't mean it can't be empowering for trans women in a different way which is not my or MM's place to define.

takeitslowly wrote:
It will be ugly and it may satisfy your feminist ideals.

You are confusing critical analysis of cultural behaviors as personal attacks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jacqueline-melissen/real-bikini-bodies_b_71...

I personally don't wear bikinis. I wouldn't necessarily say it's because I lack confidence, rather that I'm confident about being more comfortable without my belly exposed, and feel like there are more flattering options for me. Some days it's all I can do to put on a simple one piece with a pair of shorts over it and just get in the water. I don't ever want my kids to see me avoid participating in something because I'm worried about how I look, but I also want to feel comfortable and relaxed, which I find difficult in any kind of bathing suit. This fact is truer now than it's ever been after having four kids in less than six years.....

But my daughters are going to be told by the world around them that they need to look a certain way and dress a certain way, regardless of what I say to them or allow them to wear when they are young. I'm so grateful that their exposure to bikini-clad women and the "normal" female body is not only going to come from Sports Illustrated or pop-up ads on the computer. It may not be me who will show them what a "real" woman looks like when she wears a two-piece bathing suit in public, but I'm grateful to all my friends who will.

takeitslowly wrote:
I am glad you think she is beautiful, at least you don't think she looks cartoonish.

She is stunningly beautiful and just as cartoonish or not as the other women in the photos I linked to. There is no reason for her or the other women I referenced to be other than how they are as they are all products of our society and they make a living by meeting our cultural norms and exceeding them. The point being made is that meeting cultural expectations for women does not empower women, it supports the existing cultural norms.

I personally consider that Cox, in posing nude, is doing the same thing Jenna Talackova did by participating in Miss Universe. They are both proving stereotypes wrong in the sense of transgenderism. It is almost inevidable that in so doing they are also reinforcing female gender stereotypes. If they don't conform to type that is used as proof that they aren't really women. If they do conform to type they are accused of supporting gender stereotypes.

In large part I agree with MM's analysis, and I agree that analysis is important, but I don't agree with her lack of acknowledgement of the particular circumstance of being transgendered and the added pressure that imposes to conform to cultural norms.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It's not on my say-so, but I did just acknowledge that people are free to criticize (that is what started all this in the first place, no?).

I was serious about questioning your comparison. We can certainly disagree, but they seem polar opposites to me.  Funny you should mention nudes of men; as it happens I see them on an almost daily basis online. In comparison to most of them, in fact, in comparison to many images of women I see in public that pic of Cox is simple and far less an example of objectification, as some call it.

Assuming for the sake of argument she isn't being objectifed at all it still isn't an empowering photo for women. It may or may not be empowering for trans women for different reasons.

I don't know where you surf but I never see nudes of men and very few of women either for that matter. The issue isn't nudity per se it is how the nudity is presented to the male gaze.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

The issue isn't nudity per se it is how the nudity is presented to the male gaze.

Is it a Schroedinger's cat thing, where it becomes that if a man looks at it?

(I know Greer kind of alluded to that in her article)

I'm not discounting that analysis, I just question how relevant it is to this specific photo, and the comparison with women who are dressed to the nines and posed to look alluring with a hundred photographers around. As you say, it may be empowering for transwomen (though there are probably some cis women who have done something similar and also considered it personally empowering). So why is it a lightning rod here, considering that if it was a picture of a cis woman it would not have been singled out, and wouldn't have been compared to porn.

f course we live in a sea of objectification, and I get that it is a form of expression that some feel is anything but empowering, but is a nude photo of a woman by definition objectification, and considering what else is in that photo, is reducing it to that point the most important thing about it?

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I'm not discounting that analysis, I just question how relevant it is to this specific photo, and the comparison with women who are dressed to the nines and posed to look alluring with a hundred photographers around. 

Cox was also posed to look alluring and didn't show any more skin than those women did. Cox's nipples and crotch were just as covered as those of the "clothed" women and the number of photographers is immaterial. Cox wasn't caught nude and looking sexy unawares.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
As you say, it may be empowering for transwomen (though there are probably some cis women who have done something similar and also considered it personally empowering). So why is it a lightning rod here, considering that if it was a picture of a cis woman it would not have been singled out, and wouldn't have been compared to porn.

The only reason it is a lightening rod is that a petition was created to try to get MM fired for applying feminist analysis to the photo. Cox's photo was not compared to porn AND POP CULTURE because she is nude. Any woman claiming that posing like that is empowering to women would be singled out for the same criticism. Beyonce's claim to femininism has been challenged. Katy Pery, Mily Cyrus, and others have all been criticized for their hyper-sexualization and and porn-like presentation of womanhood.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Of course we live in a sea of objectification, and I get that it is a form of expression that some feel is anything but empowering, but is a nude photo of a woman by definition objectification, and considering what else is in that photo, is reducing it to that point the most important thing about it? 

MM didn't say that was the most important thing about the photo.

No, a nude photo of a woman is not by definition objectification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze

In her 1975 essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Laura Mulvey introduced the second-wave feminist concept of "male gaze" as a feature of gender power asymmetry in film. The concept was present in earlier studies of the gaze, but it was Mulvey who brought it to the forefront. Mulvey stated that women were objectified in film because heterosexual men were in control of the camera. Hollywood films played to the models of voyeurism and scopophilia.[4] The concept has subsequently been influential in feminist film theory and media studies. [5]

The male gaze[6] occurs when the camera puts the audience into the perspective of a heterosexual man. It may linger over the curves of a woman's body, for instance[citation needed]. The woman is usually[citation needed] displayed on two different levels: as an erotic object for both the characters within the film, as well as for the spectator who is watching the film. The man emerges as the dominant power within the created film fantasy. The woman is passive to the active gaze from the man. This adds an element of 'patriarchal' order and it is often seen in "illusionistic narrative film".[7] Mulvey argues that, in mainstream cinema, the male gaze typically takes precedence over the female gaze, reflecting an underlying power asymmetry.[8]

This inequality can be attributed to patriarchy which has been defined as a social ideology embedded in the belief systems of Western culture and in patriarchal societies. It is either masculine individuals or institutions created by these individuals that exert the power to determine what is considered “natural”.[9] Over the course of time, these constructed beliefs begin to seem “natural” or “normal” because they are prevalent and carry out unchallenged, thus arguing that Western culture has adopted a dyadic, hierarchical ideology which sets masculinity in binary opposition to femininity thus creating levels of inferiority.[9]

Mulvey's essay also states that the female gaze is the same as the male gaze. This means that women look at themselves through the eyes of men.[10] The male gaze may be seen by a feminist either as a manifestation of unequal power between gazer and gazed, or as a conscious or subconscious attempt to develop that inequality. From this perspective, a woman who welcomes an objectifying gaze may be simply conforming to norms established to benefit men, thereby reinforcing the power of the gaze to reduce a recipient to an object. Welcoming such objectification may be viewed as akin to exhibitionism. [11]

The possibility of an analogous female gaze[12][13][14][15] may arise from considering the male gaze. Mulvey argues that "the male figure cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification. Man is reluctant to gaze…" Describing Wide Sargasso Sea (1966), by Jean Rhys, Nalini Paul indicates that the Antoinette character gazes at Rochester, placing a garland upon him, making him appear heroic: "Rochester does not feel comfortable with having this role enforced upon him; thus, he rejects it by removing the garland, and crushing the flowers."[16]

From the male perspective, a man possesses the gaze because he is a man, whereas a woman has the gaze only when she assumes the male gazer role — when she objectifies others by gazing at them like a man. Eva-Maria Jacobsson supports Paul's description of the "female gaze" as "a mere cross-identification with masculinity", yet evidence of women's objectification of men — the discrete existence of a female gaze — can be found in the "boy toy" ads published in teen magazines, for example, despite Mulvey's contention that the gaze is property of one gender. Whether or not this is an example of female gaze or rather an internalized male gaze is up for debate, along with the other ideas on this subject. In terms of power relationships, the gazer can direct a gaze upon members of the same gender for asexual reasons, such as comparing the gazer's body image and clothing to those of the gazed-at individual. [17]

It is my contention that the "boy toy" trend is indeed a cross-identification with masculinity, an attempt at mimicking patriarchy rather than an equivalent manifestation of female power. That is equality feminism which to me is just a tactic, a step in the long journey towards genuine equality. Equality within the partriarchy is not equal as it is still rooted in the male design of society and the world.

Feminists are still searching for what it means to be female, in what ways we differ from men and why, nature versus nurture.

From arguments that there are particular and significant connections between women and nature, ecofeminism interprets their repression and exploitation in terms of the repression and exploitation of the environment. Ecofeminists believe that these connections are illustrated through traditionally "female" values such as reciprocity, nurturing and cooperation, which are present both among women and in nature. Women and nature are also united through their shared history of oppression by a patriarchalWestern society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism

What would the world be like if it had been designed by women? Would capitalism still exist? Would porn? Neoliberalism?

Women wore pantsuits to express equal power, then they became lipstick feminists to prove that they did not have to mimic men to express equal power, then wearing lipstick somehow became an expression of female power and a rejection of having to be like men in order to have equivalent power but wearing lipstick has never been an expression of female power.

 

Brachina

 The obsession with objectification is becoming unhealthy.

quizzical

no what is unhealthy for all is the objectification....

hookstrapped

Pondering wrote:

hookstrapped wrote:
  It's similar to how the Christian right objects to how gay marriage harms traditional marriage -- using stigma against and fear of the "other" combined with tautological arguments in place of evidence.  Abolitionists have quite a lot in common with the Christian right, including their shared sense of persecution when others don't quietly accept their bigotry.

Being gay is a state of being, being a "sex worker" is a choice of occupation.

And the Christian right believes being gay is a choice. That is a central premise to their bigotry, that gay people engage in sordid unnatural demeaning sexual activities by choice.

As for abolitionists and the inconsistency of saying at times, as you did here, that sex work is a choice and at other times that all sex work is coerced -- whether by threat of violence or through economic need (as if that doesn't describe all work) -- a central contradiction to abolitionist thought is revealed.  Abolitionists seek to disguise their disapproval of some women choosing to be sex workers by trying to deny that such women exist, or that the choice is real.  Denying women choice is antithetical to feminism, so choice to engage in sex work is portrayed as not a real choice, as coercion, as women being brainwashed to believe they are exercising choice when they aren't.  

Now prominent are arguments that sex work is inherently violent and damaging, reminiscent of those who sought to continue to deny women the legal authority to make a choice about their bodies when it came to abortion. And as with those arguments, to the extent that abortion or sex work is violent or damaging, that violence and danger is primarily a product of illegality.  Another parallel was the shift in tactics from criminalizing women to criminalizing the doctors who performed abortion, allowing those who sought to deny women choice to pretend (and self-deceive) that the women here are all victims that they are trying to protect and they are seeking only to punish their victimizers.

quizzical

good grief.....

Unionist

hookstrapped wrote:

As for abolitionists and the inconsistency of saying at times, as you did here, that sex work is a choice and at other times that all sex work is coerced -- whether by threat of violence or through economic need (as if that doesn't describe all work) -- a central contradiction to abolitionist thought is revealed.

Hi, hookstrapped. I am an unconditional advocate of the decriminalization of sex work. My reason for that is simple - it's necessary for the health and safety of sex workers. Not because I believe in the sanctity of free enterprise, nor because I believe that "people should be able to do whatever they want to do", etc.

Your statement above gives me pause. I hate wage labour. I want society to abolish it. It reflects and embodies the subordination of workers - of whom I am one. At the same time, I've spent my entire life defending wage labourers against (well) everyone and everything.

If that's a "central contradiction" of my life, so be it. But if you want to argue that sex work is a human right and an inalienable choice of individuals - do so. Directly. Not through the erection of straw men.

Oh, and I forgot to say: Yes, all work is (ultimately) coerced by economic need. I certainly agree with you on that point.

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I don't claim to be without my contradictions - and certainly, sometimes one has to compromise consistency to make progress on a number of levels whether you harbour internal contradictions or not - but at the same time, I read your post above, and particularly what Unionist has quoted, and it occurs to me that you are making a lot of assumptions about the stance of those of us who would like, one day in the (probably far) future to see sex work disappear. 

In short - you don't actually understand what the "abolitionist" position is, entirely, don't acknowledge that it's not just one position, and aren't willing to listen to explanations of those position with an open mind.

So, y'know, *whatever*.  (shrug)

Pondering

hookstrapped wrote:
  It's similar to how the Christian right objects to how gay marriage harms traditional marriage -- using stigma against and fear of the "other" combined with tautological arguments in place of evidence.  Abolitionists have quite a lot in common with the Christian right, including their shared sense of persecution when others don't quietly accept their bigotry.

Pondering wrote:
Being gay is a state of being, being a "sex worker" is a choice of occupation.

hookstrapped wrote:
And the Christian right believes being gay is a choice. That is a central premise to their bigotry, that gay people engage in sordid unnatural demeaning sexual activities by choice.

We know that people are born with a sexual orientation, it is not a choice. No one needs to pay people to get them to be gay. Sex workers are not born sex workers.

hookstrapped wrote:
As for abolitionists and the inconsistency of saying at times, as you did here, that sex work is a choice and at other times that all sex work is coerced -- whether by threat of violence or through economic need (as if that doesn't describe all work) -- a central contradiction to abolitionist thought is revealed. 

I don't claim anything about all sex workers. Money is a coercive force under some circumstances not all circumstances.

Our society regards sex as different from other forms of activity. That is why shaking hands, even against someone's will, is not a crime, while rape is a crime even when it leaves no physical marks.

hookstrapped wrote:
Abolitionists seek to disguise their disapproval of some women choosing to be sex workers by trying to deny that such women exist, or that the choice is real.

Well I certainly don't subscribe to that notion and there are many women who say they choose to be sex workers so if other abolitionists are saying they don't exist it's very easy to disprove.

hookstrapped wrote:
Denying women choice is antithetical to feminism, so choice to engage in sex work is portrayed as not a real choice, as coercion, as women being brainwashed to believe they are exercising choice when they aren't.

Feminism is not about blindly supporting all the choices women make so there is no need to prove no women choose to to work as prostitutes.

hookstrapped wrote:
Now prominent are arguments that sex work is inherently violent and damaging, reminiscent of those who sought to continue to deny women the legal authority to make a choice about their bodies when it came to abortion.

The difference is that abortion is a medical procedure women choose to end an unwanted pregnancy that is not harmful to them unless they are being coerced. If women were paid to have abortions I would have a huge problem with that as under such circumstances I would consider the offer of money coercive.

The prostitution industry as a whole is inherently violent and damaging to women individually and as a class however that doesn't mean every woman involved in it is damaged or violently attacked. Hitchhiking is inherently dangerous even though not all hitchhikers are harmed.

hookstrapped wrote:
And as with those arguments, to the extent that abortion or sex work is violent or damaging, that violence and danger is primarily a product of illegality.

That is an unsupportable claim and if anything there is evidence to the contrary. No country with any form of legitimization has had a measurable decrease in violence. While sex work may not harm all women and some women might absolutely adore the profession does not justify the industry as a whole.

25 to 30% of women have had an abortion. Considering less than 1% of men use a prostitute in a year it follows that considerably less than 1% of women are sex workers. Current adult sex workers are far from the only people impacted by prostitution law.

There is no reason why a country should have to deal with the the negative aspects of institutionalized prostitution including the costs of policing for a tiny minority of women who choose to be sex workers.

hookstrapped wrote:
Another parallel was the shift in tactics from criminalizing women to criminalizing the doctors who performed abortion, allowing those who sought to deny women choice to pretend (and self-deceive) that the women here are all victims that they are trying to protect and they are seeking only to punish their victimizers.

It is not necessary for prostitution to directly harm every woman involved in order for it to be a net negative for society to condone through legitimizing the commercialization of prostitution. That it is harmful to many women, not even the majority, is sufficient.

A country is not morally bound to accept an industry. We can reject any industry we deem harmful. We haven't banned seal hunting but we could based on the fact that it impacts our reputation negatively as a country. 

Within the stated goals of Bill C 36 are:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the social harm caused by the objectification of the human body and the commodification of sexual activity;

Whereas it is important to continue to denounce and prohibit the procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution and the development of economic interests in the exploitation of the prostitution of others as well as the commercialization and institutionalization of prostitution;

And whereas the Parliament of Canada is committed to protecting communities from the harms associated with prostitution;

as well as:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns about the exploitation that is inherent in prostitution and the risks of violence posed to those who engage in it;

Notice it says risk of harm, not that all women are harmed. That 100% of women are not harmed doesn't mean that Canada must condone prostitution as an industry.

The notion that prostitution is harmful but only because it is illegal is obviously untrue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bethany-st-james/life-after-prostitution_b...

When I left the adult industry almost two years ago, I walked away from virtually all I knew. I spent 20 years in a world that although makes little sense to those on the outside of it, it made perfect sense to me. I spent the latter years of my career debating in public forums for the legalization of regulated brothels and I was as passionate about it as any person could be about anything. But in time, what I came to realize was that my passion was misguided and distorted......

The ability to numb out things that should have been stressful and morph them into something normal became a coping skill. In fact, I had done it so long that I had literally shut out virtually every normal emotional response possible.

I was diagnosed with a severe form of PTSD. It all made sense. My husband's form of PTSD is the inability to shut off the body's emergency response system so the body and mind are in a constant state of alert. His five tours of war had turned it on and now it's nearly impossible to turn it off. My form is the exact opposite. I had lived my entire life in a high level of emergency response and now that it had been turned off, I had no idea how to react to even the most normal of situations. The irony is that I never felt as though I had suffered any traumatic events. But it was obvious to those closest to me that my viewpoint was severely skewed. I was informed that I most certainly had. When sharing my experiences they would shake their head in amazement that I didn't see it as strange or traumatic. They would literally stare at me in disbelief as I blankly stared back asking, "What? Is that weird?" Apparently, I had always just kept going and never stopped to take a breath. Now that I had slowed down, the weirdness of my existence had begun to surface.....

Having worked as a personal and sexual empowerment coach for the majority of my career, I have to laugh at myself that I thought I had it all figured out. I certainly did not and I don't think that any of us have anything completely figured out. As a motivating speaker who has now examined her own life under a microscope, I can say with outright certainty that without a greater understanding of who we are and without examining our reasons for doing what we do, we tend to get stuck in a place disguised as comfort.....

takeitslowly

hookstrapped wrote:

Pondering wrote:

hookstrapped wrote:
  It's similar to how the Christian right objects to how gay marriage harms traditional marriage -- using stigma against and fear of the "other" combined with tautological arguments in place of evidence.  Abolitionists have quite a lot in common with the Christian right, including their shared sense of persecution when others don't quietly accept their bigotry.

Being gay is a state of being, being a "sex worker" is a choice of occupation.

And the Christian right believes being gay is a choice. That is a central premise to their bigotry, that gay people engage in sordid unnatural demeaning sexual activities by choice.

As for abolitionists and the inconsistency of saying at times, as you did here, that sex work is a choice and at other times that all sex work is coerced -- whether by threat of violence or through economic need (as if that doesn't describe all work) -- a central contradiction to abolitionist thought is revealed.  Abolitionists seek to disguise their disapproval of some women choosing to be sex workers by trying to deny that such women exist, or that the choice is real.  Denying women choice is antithetical to feminism, so choice to engage in sex work is portrayed as not a real choice, as coercion, as women being brainwashed to believe they are exercising choice when they aren't.  

Now prominent are arguments that sex work is inherently violent and damaging, reminiscent of those who sought to continue to deny women the legal authority to make a choice about their bodies when it came to abortion. And as with those arguments, to the extent that abortion or sex work is violent or damaging, that violence and danger is primarily a product of illegality.  Another parallel was the shift in tactics from criminalizing women to criminalizing the doctors who performed abortion, allowing those who sought to deny women choice to pretend (and self-deceive) that the women here are all victims that they are trying to protect and they are seeking only to punish their victimizers.

 

That makes alot of sense to me. Shaming can be so deadly and soul destroying, and many marginalized communities  have experienced this. When it comes to sex work, I read an interesting article on that subject from a trans woman of color.

 

I do not believe using your body — often marginalized people’s only asset, especially in poor, low-income, communities of color — to care after yourself is shameful. What I find shameful is a culture that exiles, stigmatizes and criminalizes those engaged in underground economies like sex work as a means to move past struggle to surviva

Sex work is heavily stigmatized, whether one goes into it by choice, coercion or circumstance. Sex workers are often dismissed, causing even the most liberal folk, to dehumanize, devalue and demean women who are engaged in the sex trades. This pervasive dehumanization of women in the sex trades leads many to ignore the silencing, brutality, policing, criminalization and violence sex workers face, even blaming them for being utterly damaged, promiscuous, and unworthy.

So because I learned that sex work is shameful, and I correlated trans womanhood and sex work, I was taught that trans womanhood is shameful. This belief system served as the base of my understanding of self as a trans girl, and I couldn’t separate it from my own body image issues, my sense of self, my internalized shame about being trans, brown, poor, young, woman.

lhttp://janetmock.com/2014/01/30/janet-mock-sex-work-experiences/

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The prostitution industry as a whole is inherently violent and damaging to women individually and as a class however that doesn't mean every woman involved in it is damaged or violently attacked.

What of those who aren't involved in it (the "class")?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The prostitution industry as a whole is inherently violent and damaging to women individually and as a class however that doesn't mean every woman involved in it is damaged or violently attacked.

What of those who aren't involved in it (the "class")?

All women are part of the class of women therefore are harmed even if they are not violently attacked or don't feel personally damaged.

The following is about pornography not prostitution but like pornograpny prostitution can have an impact on societal expectations.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/...

The qualitative study found that anal heterosex appeared to be “painful, risky and coercive, particularly for women”, while males spoke of being expected to persuade or coerce reluctant partners....

“The idea that women would generally not wish to engage in anal sex, and so would need to be either persuaded or coerced, seemed to be taken for granted by many participants,” the study says....

The researchers do not deny that “mutually pleasurable anal practises” are possible among the age group interviewed, but that girls’ pleasure is often “absent in narratives of anal heterosex and how their absence is not only left unremarked and unchallenged, but seems to be expected by many young people.”

“Women being badgered for anal sex appears to be considered normal.”.....

Condoning prostitution as a industry presents us with two unpalatable options.

Sex is a service that women can provide to men just like doing housework or any other chore.

or

There are two kinds of women, the 99+% whose emotional sensibilities require them to want to have sex for it to be a healthy experience, and the other kind for whom using their vagina is no big deal.

That many prostitutes refuse to kiss clients and it is listed as a separate service suggests to me that none of those perceptions is true. Kissing is not more intimate than sexual intercourse or giving BJs. It's an attempt to hang onto one small shred of bodily integrity.

Like porn the legitimization of prostitution impacts how women are percieved in society. The "class" of women sounds so impersonal but girls feeling pressured into anal sex is not impersonal. It is individual girls and women who are impacted when women as a class are presented in roles that dehumanize us.

That an industry does not harm every individual it touches does not mean that we have to accept it. We can refuse on the basis that it harms a lot of people. We are talking about commercialization, not sexual orientation or sexual freedom.

If the legitimization of prostitution resulted in more women being safer then I would support it but there is no evidence of that anywhere including in New Zealand which is much smaller and more isolated than Canada.

I would find the decriminalization activists more compelling if they supported laws preventing "guards" etc. from charging above market rates and an added requirement that all brothels be profit-sharing coops and that all taxes be used to provide exit services security and other help for women in the industry. Prevention of TFWs so that the market can't be depressed would also be an obvious demand. Although migrants are coming in and working anyway NZ does technically bar migrants from the industry so it isn't unheard of.

After all the years of study and agitation the only model supported by progressive decriminalization activists is the free market neoliberal model. Colour me skeptical.

Bill C 36 will not wipe out prostitution. Women will find their way to the appropriate sites on the internet where they can advertise and where clients and providers can review each other and make arrangements.

It will help limit street prostitution and limit the most dangerous casual advertising like Craigslist and backpage, and prevent the establishment of a brothel industry. These are the most dangerous and/or damaging forms of prostitution. It also establishes that physical sexual access to women cannot be bought nor can it be sold by 3rd party.

 

Pondering

takeitslowly wrote:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/04/empowered-vs-objectified/

Because laverne cox was the first trans woman of color posing  nude gracefully  on a woman's magazine made for women, not playboy or male oriented magazines,  I believe she is acting as an empowering figure for many black women, women of color and trans women of color. She was not posing nude to impress anyone but to make herself happy and want to make a powerful statement that she loves her body. I think thats empowering. I certainly do not think Meghan Murphy has any right to say Cox's photo empowers no one because she doesn't speak for me or anyone else.

MM still has a right to express that opinion and present a supporting argument which she did. She did not say that anyone had authorized her to speak on their behalf.

takeitslowly

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The issue isn't nudity per se it is how the nudity is presented to the male gaze.

Is it a Schroedinger's cat thing, where it becomes that if a man looks at it?

(I know Greer kind of alluded to that in her article)

I'm not discounting that analysis, I just question how relevant it is to this specific photo, and the comparison with women who are dressed to the nines and posed to look alluring with a hundred photographers around. As you say, it may be empowering for transwomen (though there are probably some cis women who have done something similar and also considered it personally empowering). So why is it a lightning rod here, considering that if it was a picture of a cis woman it would not have been singled out, and wouldn't have been compared to porn.

f course we live in a sea of objectification, and I get that it is a form of expression that some feel is anything but empowering, but is a nude photo of a woman by definition objectification, and considering what else is in that photo, is reducing it to that point the most important thing about it?

 

Very good point about the difference between objectification and empowerment.  I believe posing nude can be empowering for trans women, and i believe sex work are not always disempowering. I think anyone who makes sweeping statement or speak on behalf of sex workers when they are not one need to be careful in not imposing their own beliefs on marginalized communities. This diagram shows the differences between the 2:

 

 

emp_v_obj (final 2)

takeitslowly

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/04/empowered-vs-objectified/

 

 

Because laverne cox was the first trans woman of color posing  nude gracefully  on a woman's magazine made for women, not playboy or male oriented magazines,  I believe she is acting as an empowering figure for many black women, women of color and trans women of color. She was not posing nude to impress anyone but to make herself happy and want to make a powerful statement that she loves her body. I think thats empowering. I certainly do not think Meghan Murphy has any right to say Cox's photo empowers no one because she doesn't speak for me or anyone else.

emp_v_obj (final)

 

takeitslowly

I agree , she has the right to say whatever she wants, just as I have the right to say that as a cisgender white woman, she has no right to argue that Laverne Cox's photo empowers no one. Last time i check, I am someone.

quizzical

thank you for shrinking your pictures takeitslowly

takeitslowly

you are welcomed!

Pondering

takeitslowly wrote:

I agree , she has the right to say whatever she wants, just as I have the right to say that as a cisgender white woman, she has no right to argue that Laverne Cox's photo empowers no one. Last time i check, I am someone.

Yes you do, but the petition that began all of this was not intended to just voice a differing opinion. The goal was to get MM fired for having criticized Cox's photo as unempowering.

onlinediscountanvils

Pondering wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

I agree , she has the right to say whatever she wants, just as I have the right to say that as a cisgender white woman, she has no right to argue that Laverne Cox's photo empowers no one. Last time i check, I am someone.

Yes you do, but the petition that began all of this was not intended to just voice a differing opinion. The goal was to get MM fired for having criticized Cox's photo as unempowering.

No, there was more to it than that, as I'm sure you know.

Pondering

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Pondering wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

I agree , she has the right to say whatever she wants, just as I have the right to say that as a cisgender white woman, she has no right to argue that Laverne Cox's photo empowers no one. Last time i check, I am someone.

Yes you do, but the petition that began all of this was not intended to just voice a differing opinion. The goal was to get MM fired for having criticized Cox's photo as unempowering.

No, there was more to it than that, as I'm sure you know.

There were lots of unsubstanciated accusations in the original petition but the goal was to get MM dropped from rabble based on her comments about Cox.

Here again is her article:

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

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.

The above has been twisted to infer she was speaking only of trans women when she was speaking of all women or that she was accusing Cox of being like a porn star in a derogatory sense neither of which is true.

The porn industry and pop culture present a cartoonish version of "woman" which girls and women seek to emulate as it is how the value of women is measured. Many women seek plastic surgery and other interventions such as botox injections in an attempt to meet cartoonish standards set for beauty by the patriarchy. Kim Kardashian wears a waist trainer.

An individual woman may feel empowered by meeting the cartoonish standards of beauty set by the patriarchy, she may even have more external power because of it, but she is still subordinating herself to patriarchal standards therefore not genuinely empowered.

MM takes exception to the claim that Cox's actions represent radical self-acceptance. Eating food before a photo-shoot is not radical self-acceptance. Eating is a normal human function not rebelling against the machine. A radically self accepting nude photo would show your belly hanging out. A glamour nude may be way more self-pleasing and increase one's social and professional capital but it is not radical self-acceptance.

Sineed

*deleted*

onlinediscountanvils

Pondering wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Pondering wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

I agree , she has the right to say whatever she wants, just as I have the right to say that as a cisgender white woman, she has no right to argue that Laverne Cox's photo empowers no one. Last time i check, I am someone.

Yes you do, but the petition that began all of this was not intended to just voice a differing opinion. The goal was to get MM fired for having criticized Cox's photo as unempowering.

No, there was more to it than that, as I'm sure you know.

There were lots of unsubstanciated accusations in the original petition but the goal was to get MM dropped from rabble based on her comments about Cox.

Here again is her article:

Yes, I'm familiar with the article, as I assume everyone in this thread must be by now. The concerns about Murphy and her role at rabble long preceeded that piece. 

Murphy has been publishing material that dehumanizes and disrespects women with different experiences and perspectives than hers for many years, in particular Black women, women in the sex industry and trans women. By allowing Murphy to continue as an editor at Rabble.ca you are giving a platform to her hate and we are writing to demand that you end your association with her as editor and columnist.

[...]

Despite endless attempts, Murphy has remained unwilling to evaluate her racism, transmisogyny and whorephobia. We've chosen to use an open letter as a medium, only after all other avenues toward accountability have been explored and have failed.

https://www.change.org/p/rabble-ca-we-demand-that-rabble-ca-end-your-ass...

lagatta

Not thinking the commercial sex trade is fine and dandy is "whorephobia"? What utter bullshit.

The only reason I even join in conversations is because of severe harm - including MURDER - of people I've known. I sure as hell didn't hate those people or hold them in contempt. Yes, most of them were Aboriginal.

 

Brachina

 While I agree with those who find Murphy's opinions distasteful, I'm not a fan, censorship and firing Murphy is not the answer discussion with the goal of mutual enlightment is.

hookstrapped

Unionist wrote:

hookstrapped wrote:

As for abolitionists and the inconsistency of saying at times, as you did here, that sex work is a choice and at other times that all sex work is coerced -- whether by threat of violence or through economic need (as if that doesn't describe all work) -- a central contradiction to abolitionist thought is revealed.

Hi, hookstrapped. I am an unconditional advocate of the decriminalization of sex work. My reason for that is simple - it's necessary for the health and safety of sex workers. Not because I believe in the sanctity of free enterprise, nor because I believe that "people should be able to do whatever they want to do", etc.

Your statement above gives me pause. I hate wage labour. I want society to abolish it. It reflects and embodies the subordination of workers - of whom I am one. At the same time, I've spent my entire life defending wage labourers against (well) everyone and everything.

If that's a "central contradiction" of my life, so be it. But if you want to argue that sex work is a human right and an inalienable choice of individuals - do so. Directly. Not through the erection of straw men.

Oh, and I forgot to say: Yes, all work is (ultimately) coerced by economic need. I certainly agree with you on that point.

 

 

If you support decriminalisation you're not an abolitionist and my statement doesn't apply to you. The contradiction between supporting choice when it comes to women seeking abortion and denying choice when it comes to women pursuing sex work is one that pro-choice abolitionists have to deal with (or more commonly, avoid).

Pondering

hookstrapped wrote:
If you support decriminalisation you're not an abolitionist and my statement doesn't apply to you. The contradiction between supporting choice when it comes to women seeking abortion and denying choice when it comes to women pursuing sex work is one that pro-choice abolitionists have to deal with (or more commonly, avoid).

That isn't true. A person can be an abolitionist and just not think that the law is the best means of achieving abolition.

 

 

hookstrapped

Does rabble automatically repost everything posted on feministcurrent? If people want to read that same tired predictable assortment of words they know where to go, don't they? They don't even get comments, if you don't count the ones that get deleted. 

Here's something quite interesting. It's old but I just came across it. It frames the origins of the Swedish prostitution law in Sweden's concurrent anxieties over entering the EU. It's good writing -- original, provocative, and rather funny -- everything recycled feministcurrent posts aren't.

https://sexworkresearch.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/sex-in-the-new-europe-t...

lagatta

No, rabble does not post everything posted at the blog feminist current. A cursory glance at the blog would prove otherwise.

I don't always agree with Meghan Murphy, but "sex work research" is every bit as predictable if not more so.

 

Sineed

Um nobody has posted anything from Feminist Current since May, and only when it's pertinent to topics being discussed. Go to the feminist forum and see the tumbleweeds and hear the crickets.

I may start a new thread on Amnesty's recent controversial position, if we feel like getting into it again. Though maybe somebody else could do that - I'm mainly just lurking these days, busy with RL stuff.

lagatta

That would be interesting, sineed, in terms of how one approaches "harm reduction". I certainly don't want to see any actual sex workers arrested or harassed by the police (like many marginalized people, often arrested on side issues) but I refuse to see pimping and trafficking as anything but violence and enslavement.

I think I am one of those abolitionists who doesn't think legal measures are the main solution; moreover they can wind up continuing to target sex workers rather than those who enable the exploitative trade. Access to money to live without selling one's XXXX is a key factor, and so is educating men (in particular) that using people as commodities is really not cool. I don't support C-36 because it contains measures that continue to target people in prostitution (it is a lot like the drug laws that target users and small-scale pushers rather than the networks that control the trade) and nothing but a pittance in terms of providing alternatives for desperate people. There has always been a minority of "courtesans" that prosper in the trade, but in general, the lives of people in prostitution tend to be nasty, brutish and short...

Pondering

Sineed wrote:

Um nobody has posted anything from Feminist Current since May, and only when it's pertinent to topics being discussed. Go to the feminist forum and see the tumbleweeds and hear the crickets.

I may start a new thread on Amnesty's recent controversial position, if we feel like getting into it again. Though maybe somebody else could do that - I'm mainly just lurking these days, busy with RL stuff.

I agree with Legatta on C 36 only I support it with the exception of the measures that targets sex workers themselves. We need a basic minimum income to replace the current hodgepodge of benefits. I'm hoping to see it in the platforms because it makes economic sense. Housing first programs have also proven to be more economical than shelters, jails and hospitals where the homeless often end up. Those two measures alone would help women off the streets.

I don't think anyone has the heart to reopen this debate and as the law has passed there is little reason to if and until it is challenged. Police seem to have already shifted away from prosecuting prostitutes and towards situations they deem to be the most exploitative. That was the case even before C 36. Discreet women working out of private homes, apartments or hotels will continue to ply their trade.

Amnesty International is not going to change its mind anytime soon. They were already petitioned. Time will condemn their decision because prostitution as an established industry degrades women. New Zealand is at best an exception to the rule which is likely due to its geographic location and it is not the resounding success that proponents claim.

One thing we can be sure of is that time will tell. From my observation places that condone prostitution as an industry deteriorate and that is easily demonstrated. If I am wrong time will tell that too.

Someday people will be as deeply appalled at the thought of women being displayed for sale in windows as sex providers as we do now of public hangings.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Meghan Murphy banned from Twitter

I couldn't find any non-partisan articles about it, so take everything else with a grain of salt, if you wish.

voice of the damned

According to Feminist Current, she was indeed banned...

https://tinyurl.com/y9pj4d7e

And in case anybody wants to gin up an anti-twitter pile-on over this, I do believe that refusing to acknowledge someone's gender would get you banned on babble as well, no?

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I do believe that refusing to acknowledge someone's gender would get you banned on babble as well, no?

If it were directed at another babbler then probably.  I'm not sure that saying "Chaz Bono is a woman" would.

I expect that's where Murphy got on the outs with Twitter -- directing it at another Twitter user.  Whether Twitter would allow her to say something general like "Trans-women are men" (or, "I believe that trans-women are men") I don't know.

quizzical

in solidarity with Meghan. fk twitter and those who got her banned.

i don't give a damn whether men who transition call themselves and live as women, or the other way around. there is no way in hell they know what it's like to be born and live as a woman. just as i don't know what it's like to be a transgender person and what they go through in their lives.

don't diminish my gendered life experience and i won't diminish theirs but they are transwomen not xx.

 

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I do believe that refusing to acknowledge someone's gender would get you banned on babble as well, no?

If it were directed at another babbler then probably.  I'm not sure that saying "Chaz Bono is a woman" would.

I expect that's where Murphy got on the outs with Twitter -- directing it at another Twitter user.  Whether Twitter would allow her to say something general like "Trans-women are men" (or, "I believe that trans-women are men") I don't know.

I can't see where on that twitchy site it says she directed her comments at another user. Your link provides a link to an earlier article, about her being banned for making a general statement, and then says that she has been banned again, but doesn't seem to give any details about the second banning.

EDIT: Or were you getting that information from my Feminist Current link? Feminist Current appears to be down now, so I can't check the details about what they said.

Pages