The campaign against Meghan Murphy

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.

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.

@ 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.

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?

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. 

jas wrote:

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

About 136.

takeitslowly wrote:

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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?’”

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

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.

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.

[deleted]

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

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-...

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.

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 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.

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 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).