Thursday, November 5, 2015

The psychological underpinnings of liberal support for transgender identity politics


It really is this simple:

  • If you aren't disgusted by transwomen, you won't have to lie to yourself about them.
  • If you don't hate women, you won't erase femaleness or feminism.
  • And if you aren't terrified of men, you'll hold them responsible for the violence they commit.

Disgust, hatred and fear. Every emotion you project onto TERFs.

THE CALL IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Gender charts and graphics

I am no graphic designer, but I often try to get my ideas across visually, whether in charts or graphics. I have gathered most of them here for easy access.

Gender crit cheat sheet, also available as one page PDF:




Clarifying gender:







Another chart:


And related graphics:





A couple more charts, re. gender & race. First, on liberal power-blindness:


Next, on white vs. "cis":


More on "cis":




Intersectionality:


On brain sex/gender identity:





On "feeling like a woman":





On AFTAs (anti-feminist trans activists):






And more:








Some new additions-

On transing kids:




On blaming women:




To sum up:


Tuesday, August 11, 2015

On Amnesty International, poverty, and "voluntary sex work"





Let's ask a handful of different but related questions:

Q: All want to end poverty, but in meantime why deny homeless people the option of voluntary bum fights pugilist work?

A: Name the agent: Granting rich people the option to dehumanize and exploit homeless people entrenches poverty.

Q: All want to end poverty, but in meantime why deny poor immigrants the option of voluntary migrant farm work?

A: Name the agent: Granting rich people the option to dehumanize and exploit poor immigrants entrenches poverty.

Q: All want to end poverty, but in meantime why deny poor black men the option of voluntary mandingo work?

A: Name the agent: Granting rich white people the option to dehumanize and exploit poor black people entrenches poverty.

Q: All want to end poverty, but in meantime why deny poor people in the 2/3 world the option of voluntary sweatshop work?

A: Name the agent: Granting people in the "first world" the option to dehumanize and exploit poor people in the 2/3 world entrenches poverty.



So, why can't Amnesty International recognize that granting men the option to dehumanize and exploit poor women (especially poor women of color) will entrench poverty?

It's almost like Amnesty International is not only incapable of naming males as an exploiter class, but also and even more frighteningly incapable of viewing poor women, especially poor women of color, as PEOPLE.



Saturday, July 4, 2015

Black Women Deserve Better.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing women that making his dick hard was the path to our salvation. -Sass, Independence Day 2015



This is my hot take on Rihanna's Bitch Better Have My Money video: if black women are finding catharsis from it, that's great, but black women deserve a whole lot better.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the American South, maybe it's because I studied abroad in a formerly colonized sub-Saharan African country, maybe it's because my undergraduate major was cultural anthropology, but I have no problem accepting black women's anger at white women as agents of racism. I also empathize with the act of finding catharsis where you can, even in "problematic" media, because most media provides no catharsis at all, only ever more frustrated anger.

But let's be clear about Rihanna's video: it is a complete capitulation to white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Rihanna does not envision herself reacting against the money-obsessed, misogynistic murderers who have oppressed black women for centuries, she envisions herself becoming one of them. One could try to frame this as a sly reversal, but for the incompleteness of that reversal - rich white men have never felt the need to objectify themselves - to make sure they sexually titillate the people they subjugate - while conducting their crimes. For all the talk about what this video says to or about black women and white women, we've heard very little about what it says to rich white men: Rihanna wants to be just like you, with the extra added bonus of showing you all the tits and ass -hers and other women's- you could ever want. Rich white men get their egos stroked, check. Rich white men get their dicks stroked, check. Rich white dudes get to watch a (hot) rich white woman being (sexually) tortured and call it "edgy" or "progressive" because a black woman is doing it for them, check. Rihanna's bank account grows, check.

If the video for BBHMM was about black women's revenge against white women, the only adjustments needed to avoid kowtowing to rich white male egos and dicks would be: 1) make the white woman culpable for something other than a relationship with a rich white man; 2) don't make the white woman a sex doll; 3) don't make her punishment sexual. But of course that's not what the video is about. The video is about Rihanna getting her money. And catering to rich white men's egos and dicks gets the money.

Of course, current #twitterfeminist orthodoxy holds that as long as a woman is making money off men's fragile egos and (even more fragile) dicks, that's empowering and therefore feminist.

So how does this square with any analysis of white women's racism, given white women's enforced dependence on white men? White women gain financial security via racist, sexist rich white men: bad; black women gain financial security via racist, sexist rich white men, good? Who is winning here? Could it possibly be rich white men?

Rihanna's video even ends with her naked in the same box used to kidnap her white victim. Naked, covered in blood, voluntarily boxed in, but it's all OK, because money.

Black women deserve better.


Sunday, June 14, 2015

Rachel Dolezal vs. Bruce Jenner: The Real Difference



There are, of course, a slew of new editorials out which purport to explain the difference - the identity politickers of the Left are tying themselves in pretzels to justify transgenderism while decrying transracialism, even though they have made this bed:


Anyhoo, the difference between how the Left treats transgenderism and transracialism is both simple and obvious.

Rachel is a villain because the Left does not believe in black brains (or at least - they know better than to admit such a belief.)

Bruce is a hero because the Left does believe in lady brains.

What's the difference between the idea of black brains and the idea of lady brains?

"Black brain" erases the experience of racist socialization. Some men experience racist socialization, so that experience cannot be erased.

"Lady brain" erases the experience of feminine socialization. No men experience feminine socialization, so that experience can be erased, with glee.

This is also why we can have an essay on how Rachel Dolezal is not a black woman because she did not grow up as a black girl, when no such standard holds for Laverne Cox or Janet Mock.

HTH!

[More thorough take on this issue here: Sex and Race and Boundaries on the Left.]

Editing to add: For those asking why Dolezal couldn't work for civil rights and socialize with black people as a white person: 1) I agree, and 2) Why are we not allowed to ask why Jenner couldn't simper in expensive lingerie on a magazine cover as a man?



Saturday, June 13, 2015

Transgender identity politics and brainsex: the epitome of pseudoscience

Brainsex is the centuries-old, conservative idea that men and women have different brains - resulting in innately different personalities, which just happen to serve male supremacy. This is Jon Ronson, quoting 19th century doctor Gustave ale Bon:




Meanwhile, in 2015, male people become female via brainsex. What does a female brain mean? According to transwomen quoted here it means you like "being dominated and fucked in bed," are "super emotional and dramatic about silly things;" et cetera.


Brainsex now is just as sexist as brainsex was in the 1800s. However, the sexism of brainsex is not my topic today. As someone who values critical inquiry, what bothers me even more than the blatant sexism is the sheer level of anti-science thinking required to accept that transgenderism proves brainsex when in fact it disproves brainsex

WTF

If your thesis is that male humans and female humans have different brains, you must define male and female and those definitions must STICK. Male = sperm producer. Female = ova producer. The existence of males/sperm-producers who supposedly have "ladybrain" means THAT'S NOT A LADYBRAIN. 


THIS COPING METHOD OF CHANGING YOUR DEFINITIONS TO DISGUISE THE FAILURE OF YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

P.S. for those who think the existence of (sexist, anti-scientific) brainsex theory differentiates transgenderism from transracialism/#wrongskin, I give you THE HISTORY OF BRAINRACE THEORY.

Stop bending yourselves in pretzels and just accept that human personality isn't innately sexed any more than it is innately racialized.




[For much more in-depth feminist analysis of the pseudoscience of brainsex, see Elizabeth Hungerford here as well as Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender and Rebecca Jordan-Young's Brainstorm.]