Sunday, 30 December 2012
Or rather the privilege of defining "politeness".
As a person with autism, I am often accused of being "impolite" for not expressing in the same way as neurotypical people, as a minority and a social justice advocate I am often accused of being "impolite" for pointing out an issue, whether that be the racism in the white feminist movement or how sexist and not funny a rape joke is.
Ever notice it is always the privileged person who defines politeness and deems the minority not to be polite enough?
That's because choosing what is polite and having the social power to enforce that choice is a function of privilege.
Whether it's "you pointed out my racism, you're rude" or "you didn't behave as I expected so you're rude", privilege affords privileged people the power and the "right" to define politeness and rudeness.
Minorities are constantly policed not just by the majority but also intersectionally. The amount of times I've been told that pointing out problematic behaviour from a fellow minority who is privileged in a different area to the one we share is "rude" and "divisive", are many.
Whether it be white feminists getting pissy because talking about the racism in feminism and feminist spaces is "divisive", or able bodied feminists getting pissy because asking them not to use slurs is not working in "solidarity" or is "racist" if you're asking a WoC feminist not to use them.
My point? Next time you go to call someone impolite or to support someone who is calling someone impolite? Be sure to check you're not calling them impolite because they pointed out your privilege/bad behaviour/brought up something you feel guilty about and make sure the "impoliteness" isn't actually coming from inside you.
My twitter account is currently suspended, because when a feminist self declared ally of WoC fucked up and I politely explained that the stuff she said was problematic, she repeatedly blocked and unblocked me and reported me for spam at the same time so the automatic suspension flagged my account and suspended it. I'm not sure if that was on purpose because she was pissed as being called out or if she just didn't think about it.
So I'm going to write an open letter to people who come out with the same problematic stuff as she did. I'm concentrating mostly on WoC issues but this can apply to any minority group who identify as or who are seen as female. This btw, was what she responded problematically to: http://samambreen.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/white-feminists-now-will-you-listen/
Dear self declared white feminist Allies to WoC and other minority groups,
No matter how wonderful you think you are as a white feminist ally to Women of Color, racism and ignorance of the issues women of color face is still a rampant issue in feminism due to the overwhelming domination of white privileged feminists who are to be candid are frequently ignorant and unaware of their impact on minorities. Others commenting on this and similar lack of inclusions that happen to women with disabilities and GLBTQ people who identify as women or who are seen as women is not a personal criticism of you. You are not the entirety of feminism; So you really need to stop getting personally offended when WoC and those of us who are listening say that white feminism has a bad habit of getting it wrong when it comes to issues women of color face.
No, this is not a fringe problem like many of you think. Racism in feminism is still a massive mainstream issue. Yes, feminism has improved from the days when leading feminists like Sanger said the most dreadfully racist things, but it's still not fully inclusive of women of color nor does it always respect the issues women of color face. We've still got a long way to go before it is. Much like we have a long way to go before we will no longer need feminism.
If you're expecting credit for the fact that feminism sucks slightly less for Women of color now? You're doing it wrong. If you're getting offended because in a discussion of white women not getting WoC issues, you didn't get credit for how wonderful you think you are? You're doing it wrong. You don't become an ally to minorities for credit, you become one because being one is being a decent human being. If you're an ally? You don't need a pat on the back, because being a good person is it's own reward.
Also women of color do not need or even want you to fight on their behalf, they're more than capable of handling their own fights. You are not being a great ally by trying to lead the fights of others for them, especially given your lack of insight into what women of color really need. Being a great ally to women of color is about including women of color and their voices in the mainstream fight, it's about making women of color welcome in feminist communities, it's about supporting their voices, not supplanting them, it's about backing our sisters up, not standing on their shoulders to shout for them.
Also, no you do not get what it is like to be a Woman of color, a woman with a disability, or a GLBTQ female identifying person if you are not one. This is why you should not be fighting for any of those groups because you probably don't know what is really needed for them, it takes personal experience to know that. Not only that but it's bloody offensive to women of color when you try to be the great white feminist savior of them, and yes, you "fighting on their behalf" often comes off like that and sometimes it is obvious that you do have an unacknowledged savior complex.
Also no lacking class privilege will not change that you are not a woman of color. Being poor doesn't erase your white privilege. Seriously, don't try to argue you don't have privilege in terms of skin color, it's dreadfully ignorant, especially when you've just pulled a privileged move and been told please don't do that.
Trying to empathise with WoC is not the same as having direct experience of racism and direct understanding of the issues WoC face. You really need to face this and to learn to listen to what Women of color say, not splutter in outrage because a Women of color said you weren't listening.
Also "inclusive" doesn't mean "white feminists get to weigh in on WoC issues without being told they're wrong/ignorant/fucking up when they mess up". Seriously, inclusivity isn't an argument for getting it all your own way.
Also WoC and their allies pointing out this crap? Isn't a threat to solidarity, the fact that white feminism is choc-a-block with this sort of shit is a threat to solidarity. White feminist racism is far more alienating to community members who are WoC or simply not assholes than requiring white feminists to do better could ever be.
In it's own way, me writing this is problematic and I acknowledge it as such, this could easily go into speaking for women of color even though I do not intend to do so. I am writing this to support them and because as a white feminist even if I don't actively try to add to the racism problems in feminism? I am still responsible because I am part of it. I am responsible when I remain silent, I am responsible when I do not speak up in the face of your ignorance. I am responsible when I stand by and let you treat our sisters like you do. So I am taking my responsibility and doing something with it.
I wrote this because as a white feminist it is my job to make our movement a better and more inclusive place. I want to be be part of the answer as well as part of the problem. I can't discard my white privilege which benefits me in feminist circles, but I can speak up and tell you that it is not acceptable that we treat women of color or any minority covered under feminism the way we do. It is not acceptable to sideline their voices, it is not acceptable to get in a snitfit because they say things that make us personally uncomfortable, it is not acceptable that we take out our guilt at our white privilege on them.
Part of being for social justice is learning to deal with personal discomfort. It's been looked at like you're mad and disliked because you "ruined the fun" by pointing out the rape joke, the misogyny, the racism or whatever casual bigotry someone just displayed. It's becoming aware of our place within intersectional privilege and oppression. It's learning to deal with things we didn't ask for or deliberately do but are still complicit in without letting guilt overwhelm and paralyze us. For white people, It's understanding that we are complicit in racism but letting go of the guilt response, our guilt helps nobody, our actions, our willingness to listen, to learn, to grow does.
If we wanted an easy life, we would have remained ignorant, so don't tell me the discomfort of addressing the racism in white feminist responses to Women of color is too much and too far, because if it's too much for you, then so is feminism.
Don't just take my word for it though, here's a round up of awesome WoC bloggers and non-WoC posts addressing the problem.
http://dearwhitefeminists.wordpress.com/ (Chock full of WoC posts on the subject, excellent starting point).
http://shadowscrescent.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/the-default-feminism-is-white-privilege/ Awesome WoC blog on this problem/
To the others who defend the sort of attitude and thoughts I'm addressing and especially to the folks who defended it last night,
People we like can still say ignorant things. We can respect them for being a good feminist in one way without ignoring that they tripped up over their feet in others. There are plenty of big name feminists who don't get minority issues at all never mind all of the time, it's a big issue, and people we like are still growing, still learning, the fuck up they make today, they will learn from if they're as good as we think they are.
Also intention is not magical, your friend was whining that the woman who died in India was "being used to attack white feminists" there's no way that could not be inappropriate as hell. Feminism has let down Women of color, disabled women, queer women, trans-women, trans-men and many more minority groups. Stating so is not an attack on white feminists, standing up and saying that feminism can and should be better is not an attack on white feminist.
Also privilege does not function differently in America, where the fuck did that claim come from? Especially since much mainstream social justice writing is coming from the US.
Also don't complain to me that I wasn't "tactful" enough. Really, given the seriously personal discomfort and immediate guilt many white feminists experience when it comes to the cognitive dissonance of the reality of racism in feminism and what they think feminism and racism is like, it's ridiculously common for white feminists to get majorly upset and to see it as a personal attack on them when first told about it. Been there, done that myself, and people were much meaner to me about it. One person told me to go kill myself for example when I didn't get it.
Your friend is not just ignorant, they're actually racist. In between their "I'm color blind" crap and "wah saying I have white privilege is the same as saying I didn't struggle" is a racist subtext that they ignore, just because they don't call someone a n***** doesn't erase their racist assumptions and thoughts.
Friday, 28 December 2012
We really need to bring an end to the myth that monsters are sick/victims themselves, or indeed anything other that entirely normal people who choose to do monstrous things.
The vast majority of abuse victims do not become monsters and many people who become monsters have perfectly average non-abusive child hoods.
The myth that a monster is sick/a victim hurts actual victims in several ways.
The assumption of mental illness/sickness, it stigmatizes people who are mentally ill.
The assumption that abuse leads to the creation of monsters not only fuels stigmatization of actual victims/survivors since it's easy to assume that it is only a matter of time before we snap, it also undermines the self belief of the victims/survivors. Imagine being told that what you went through turns people into monsters, do you have any idea of the kind of fear and terror of the idea that you will automatically become a monster causes? Btw, it's pretty awful, just so you know. As if we didn't have enough to deal with, we suffer abuse, and then there's victim blaming and this shit. Which also lets our abusers off the hook by blaming their actions on abuse/sickness instead of on the real reason for most abuse.
What really makes a monster? The choice.
When you get down to it the majority of abusers? Are self entitled assholes. They think their violence and abuse is justified because they feel entitled to treat others like that. The majority of the time when people do nasty things to other people, even if it's not outright abuse? They do it because they think they are in the right. Self entitlement is the most toxic of human viewpoints, and it is one that is chosen.
Self entitlement is a function of privilege, so it's little wonder that, violence, murder, rape, and domestic violence is primarily committed by men. It's little wonder that the majority of spree killers are white men.
Anyone can choose to harm others. Anyone can self justify harming others. Those are not functions of being mentally ill or being abused, those are functions of being human with the ability to choose how we act and treat others. We can choose to be self entitled about our privilege, or we can choose not to be. It is that choice that determines if we are a monster.
We need to be talking about the role privilege plays in monsterhood, not playing "monsters aren't normal" because they bloody well are, they simply make a choice to be a monster. Monsters are normal people, they aren't mentally ill, they aren't abused victims most of the time, they aren't abnormal, they're just self entitled and capable of self justifying what they do.
Sunday, 23 December 2012
For the uninitiated, Penny Arcade is a comic that has a problematic history of being completely ignorant, including rape jokes, dismissing what people are telling them. Recently they weighed in on the gun control debate.
Evidently the dickwolves fiasco didn't educate them on how not to fuck up. Why is this a fuck up? It's simple.
The argument they're "arguing" against is a massive fucking red herring.
For starters? The idea that video games cause violence by themselves is complete bunk, however, if it was true?
1. The first amendment does not allow everything anyone wants to do.
There are many legally prohibited behaviours that one may not do, for example shouting fire in a theater, making threats, hate speech. If the first amendment was absolute? It would be okay to use racial slurs on TV, since it is not? It is not absolute license.
Also we would not have things like defamation laws.
Ergo, if video games did cause violence, then prohibiting whatever part of them caused it would not necessarily violate the first amendment.
2. Secondly, if video games did cause violence, it does not follow that new laws would be the logical answer to that.
Most of the ratings systems the TV and game industry uses now? All voluntary. Supposing that video games did cause violence, it would be well within the industries power to tighten those guidelines or to up the rating based on violence.
Games that don't make money don't get made, ergo if video games caused violence, and we could isolate the reason? It would not be hard to convince much of the public to not buy (cripes look at how effective the vaccine autism bollocks is, a similar campaign could devastate the games industry) such games.
No new laws? No possible violation of the first amendment.
3. Last but not least, the constitution is a living document, it's meant to evolve. By setting themselves up as champions of the first amendment? They are apparently arguing that this living document and how we interpret it should remain set in stone because red herring arguments are scary.
Fact is there are plenty of counter arguments to such claims. By even bothering with the red herring argument, they grant it validation and distract from the real point, which is to do something about spree killing.
Penny Arcade could have brought up that the majority of spree killers are white males, or tackled the fact that guns are often advertised in ways that tag gun owning with manliness. The weapon used in the Sandy Hook killing spree actually comes with a "man card", as if owning the gun somehow makes a man a man. They could have brought a legitimate argument to the table to counter the ridiculous distraction techniques of the NRA. They did not. A comic based on the ridiculous idea that a piece of metal that shoots other pieces of metal makes one a man could have been hilarious.
Instead they fucked up, and the gross part is they totally erased the victims in their zeal to argue against regulating the media as if there was a serious threat to media (which there is not, Thompson proved that!). There are 20+ people and families that will never be the same, but Penny Arcade has nothing to say about them it seems.
Penny Arcade's comic comes off as sensitive and as informed as the wailing tantrum of a three year old who has overheard the adult's discussing presents for children who do not have any, and assumed that they intend to give his toys to the children who do not have any. The comic is self involved, short sighted, poorly written and generally lives up to the stereotype of the selfish manchild geek.
Yet again, I'm not impressed with the privileged ignorance of the owners.
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
Why do we let them do this to us? Why do we do it to ourselves?
Do we really fear that there isn't enough equality to go around and that granting it to someone else will mean less for us?
Why are feminist circles so often a toxic mix of Disabilism, homophobia, cissexism, racism, classism and other oppressions?
Why are spaces for people of color so often reeking of disabilism, homophobia, cissexism, misogyny and other oppressions?
Why are GLBTQ groups often full of toxic cissexism and misogny?
Do people really think that not using slurs that hurt others groups in minority spaces will somehow lessen their equality? Is that the equality you want? The equal ability to be an oppressive bastard just like any other majority, while also getting your rights?
I am tired of safe spaces that are not actually safe spaces.
I am tired of safe spaces that say "you must be one of us" where one of us means "you must tolerate the bigotry of people who share one minority in common with you because calling them out is not being one of us".
I am tired of safe spaces that give lip service to some minority rights. It's one thing to say isms are unacceptable, but when you don't enforce it, you might as well not say it.
As a disabled, impoverished, bisexual, genderqueer, female bodied person, I want a space where I don't have to put up with disabilist slurs to be with my female bodied peers and to talk about misogyny. I want a space where I don't have to leave parts of my identity outside and suffer micro-aggressions.
I'm tired of seeing my peers pull "we're oppressed, so we should be allowed to say things that hurt you/others". You'd think they'd all know better, if only because being subjected to that shit themselves, they should know what it feels like when people think they're entitled to say whatever shitty hurtful things they want.
I am tired of people who rather than going "okay, I won't use that slur again" instead argue that someone else's privilege (given most of us have a mix of privilege and oppression) means that person calling them on the slur usage is oppression itself.
The fact that you suffer from sexism/racism/disabilism/homophobia/transaphobia/classism/any other ism does not make it acceptable for you to perpetuate other isms in minority spaces, and I am tired of people who think it does make it acceptable.
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Peter Lloyd of the Daily Mail just had to open his mouth today and sexism spewed out and onto his keyboard and then onto the web.
"This week, Esther Walker - wife of celebrity food critic Giles Coren - wrote a lacerating opinion piece about her casual sexism towards men and boys."
Dear Peter, women cannot be sexist. Prejudiced yes, sexism however requires institutional power, which only men have. Furthermore given the fact that we live in a patriarchy with rape culture and all that crap? There are very good reasons why women may feel ambivalent towards men at best.
"As a men's issues writer, and an activist for greater compassion around male-specific problems - including father's rights, the 90 per cent of homeless people who are men and our soaring suicide rates - this baby bias is no different."
Prior to this he quotes some of the "offensive" article seemingly without realising that many of the things complained about are male behaviours encoded into patriarchal expectations of men. As if women shouldn't complain about undesirable male behaviours that basically we're expected to put up with constantly from when we are young.
Fathers rights? See MRA. See probably fairly ignorant of why the system works that way and how it is men that have largely caused it, because it's not like making child raising women's work socially doesn't affect father's rights, oh wait, it does.
The 90% of homeless are men? Bollocks.
80-88% are the highest numbers and they are highly disputed because it's considered that much female homelessness is concealed homelessness, and those figures are before this happened:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shocking-rise-in-homelessness-among-women-883769.html The number of women who are homeless has soared in the last decade.
There's a whole load of issues with him using that statistic I could go into. It's not as simplistic as he's making out.
"In fact, it might be worse - because here we've reached a new low in the socially acceptable hatred of men and defenceless boys."
You're kidding me right? Socially acceptable hatred of men and boys? Yeah because women being perceived as being mean about men who enjoy a level of privilege and advantage women don't, and men existing in a framework that makes their lives easier at the expense of other groups is socially acceptable hatred of men. Cripes, it's like watching a small boy complain his mother hates him because he only got nine sweets and he wanted ten.
"Her opinions are a towering, crass example of misandry (the male equivalent of misogyny) which is so embedded in our societies, schools, music charts, television programmes and newspapers that it frequently goes unnoticed."
Misandry, about as feared as the Toothfairy and Santa Claus. See we live in a Patriarchy Peter, if there's anything in society, schools, music, TV or papers that hurts men? It's a side effect of misogyny. Misandry doesn't exist, it's a made up concept perpetuated by MRAs who are seemingly jealous that they don't get to be victims.
"As someone who isn't sexist (I worked on a feminist magazine for three years) and have a father who is the best man I know, I find her comments particularly cringeworthy."
Someone who isn't sexist? Peter, just so you know? If you have to say it, you definitely ARE sexist. Also working for a feminist magazine doesn't make you not sexist, especially not when you spout sexist shit.
"Like all the boys I know, my nephew is a loving, caring, intelligent, funny and innocent person. But wider society will rarely tell him this. In fact, outside his family circle, he will be told he's clumsy, bashful, emotionally stunted and brutish.
As he gets older he'll be told he's developing much slower than girls; a low achiever in the making.
Unfortunately, this is only the basics. The entire system is at risk of letting him down: schools across the western world are failing boys because curriculums are so heavily feminised, women are earning more money than men per hour and also living longer."
Really? No, he'll be told he's a brute because as part of rape culture, society holds that men are not inherently responsible for their actions, that's misogyny. Also curriculums being "feminized" is fucking bullshit of the highest MRA degree, all that changed was women being more encouraged to show off our intelligence. Also women earning more then men? Only before they have kids (if they do) and hit the glass ceiling, on average women make 80% of what a man does once you aggregate it all. Also women living longer is just biology.
"Most university graduates are women, they benefit from better NHS funding and frequently enjoy legal leniency over the same crimes. Still not convinced?"
They're still paid less than male university graduates. Also I don't know where the bollocks about better NHS fund came from but it's bollocks, women are more likely to die from many preventable conditions. The leading cause of death in women is heart attacks but women are TWICE as likely to die from one because we're more likely to have our symptoms dismissed as "anxiety" and "overemotionalness".
As for legal leniency? On average women tend to perform less violent crimes, and the primary reason for leniency is that they are often the main care providers for children. Perhaps if you changed the assumption that babies = women's work, that might change. That's a function of misogyny.
"One in six victims of domestic violence are male - but are ignored - and many male victims of female-on-male sexual assault are laughed at."
So are the other five women. Again, misogyny in action, except Peter's too ignorant and sexist to recognise it so blames women for it.
"Society is happy to trash males or see them fail because, in an eagerness to 'get' feminism - even the radicalised, extremist strands - male success is now misconstrued as gender advantage, not hard work or a human right to thrive. "
Seriously how does one get to be a journalist and remain this fucking completely unaware, especially after working on a feminist magazine for years? A: society isn't eager to get feminism, it is and still is an uphill struggle. B: Men do have a gender advantage that makes it easier for them to succeed because we live in a patriarchy.
"I, for one, won't take it lying down. I'm about to launch a legal battle with my gym, the Kentish Town Sports Centre, because it bans all males - including young boys and pensioners - for several hours every week to make it a 'safe' area. "
Because heaven fucking forbid women have space and time where they know they're not going to be subject to rape culture, the male gaze and many other creepy issues men often bring with them into such spaces?
"The fact that women are not in danger for the rest of the time is an aside; it's a sexism which reinforces that myth that men are born in a dormant state of 'wrongness' and must be controlled. We're not."
Not in danger? How wonderful that you, a man apparently get to decide what is danger, cos nobody ever has followed you around the gym making gross comments right? So it can't possibly happen to us women. Finally he gets one thing a tiny bit right, the belief that men are mad rapists is sexism, but it's sexism created by men and rape culture. So if you fucking tackled that women wouldn't need safe spaces!
"No, we don't know each other, but we do live a few streets away from each other in North London. Perhaps, after an impromptu chat on the treadmills, she would exercise her brain as well as her body"
Peter's totally not sexist. But he'll still tell a woman via his column that she's stupid after spouting the most appallingly sexist ignorant shit himself. Cripes, no wonder she doesn't want a boy, it might grow up to be just like Peter Lloyd and that would be an embarassment.
"Then, in 25 years time, when their son leaves home with an intelligent, balanced wife, Esther will have every reason to be very, very proud of her son - not least because he was smart enough to choose a woman who's nothing like her."
Because of course if she has a boy he has to be a straight and Peter once again has to make a jab about Esther's intelligence.
Congratulations Peter Lloyd, you're sexist as hell.
Saturday, 8 December 2012
Don't get me wrong, Cis women who say that Trans women aren't really women need to shut the fuck up and sit their bigoted asses down.
I also think the notion that Trans women are a threat to cis women if they have a penis to be absolutely fucking ridiculous.
However, could trans women please stop dismissing the concerns of female bodied women when it comes to sexual predators?
And could you please realise it's an intersectional issue, while I do respect that you are in fact a woman and most certainly are not a threat to me, I want you to respect in return that having a female body means we are subject to constant gender violence and therefore have been taught to be afraid of cis men in ways you're only just discovering. I want you to understand that female bodied people have very few safe spaces where they don't have to be hyper alert to the sexual violence of cis men, and to understand that the safety of female bodied people needs to be balanced with the safety and rights of trans women.
These are examples of cis male sex offenders who have dressed as women in order to access spaces where they would be able to see, touch or even assault female bodied people and children while those people were unclothed or vulnerable.
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2003/11/27/Cross-dresser-arrested-in-bath-house/UPI-63871069941991/ <== in this one the guy basically admitted that was his intention.
And do remember these are only the ones who got caught, the catch and conviction rates on cis male predators is low.
Here's the thing Trans women, cis male sex offenders, they don't come with a handy dandy label identifying them. That's why female bodied people are so scared and protective of their spaces, because we are taught it is our job to protect ourselves and to be constantly vigilant. We live with paranoia because anything less is dangerous to us. I don't care if the trans woman in the changing room with me has a male body, because she's a woman, I do however care if there is someone who is a cis man in the room with me who is pretending to be trans in order to view women and children naked or who may be planning to sexually assault someone because I have to care about the latter, it's a very real threat to me.
I also cannot understand why you don't find these cis men to be a concern as well. Do you think you would magically be immune if a cis male sex offender came into the bathroom dressed as a woman with the intention of assaulting someone? Do you think you're not at risk of violence and sexual assault from these cis men somehow?
I don't know what the answer is, until rape culture, cis male sexual violence and transphobia come to an end, there is no perfect solution that will keep us all safe. I'd just appreciate it if you'd remember our safety as well as yours.
Friday, 7 December 2012
With all due respect?
While you are a woman and belong in women's spaces?
You experience sexism only once you transition. You however prior to this have been raised with full male privilege, and you need to remember this. You may not have wanted it and undoubtedly if you could have changed it you would, that however does not negate the fact it existed.
Being born with a female body is not the same as being born a trans woman. We're both considered women but we both have received different treatment because of our perceived physical gender. That changes somewhat if you transition but it does not erase the differences in experience.
1. You probably were not raised with casually bigoted attitudes towards your perceived gender. Chances are nobody thought your ambitions were stupid or wrong simply because you were seen as a boy and boys don't tend to get made fun of for being ambitious.
Being told one is stupid and wrong for wanting more has a profound impact on the psyche of young female bodied people. Male bodied people are pretty much encouraged to dream as high and as far as they want to.
2. If you chose to play rough, to be loud, or to be assertive, you were probably not scolded for it, and conditioned to be meek, because those who are considered boys are expected to be rough, loud and assertive.
Again, this is behaviour modification overwhelmingly aimed at female bodied people. Male bodied people are given far more leeway with behaviour, this results in more confidence in self expression.
3. If you got angry, people probably took your anger seriously, they probably did not find it funny, because people take it seriously when someone they consider to be a man is angry, but they find someone they consider to be women being angry hilarious/cute/insert belittling adjective here.
Being taken seriously is a massive thing, it's very important to the development of self confidence and self advocating.
4. Chances are nobody made sexual comments about your body when you were still a child, because people don't generally do that to children who are male bodied. Your first encounter with sexuality and awareness of your body changes probably won't have been numerous adult men sneeringly offering gross comments or adult women branding you a whore because you dared to grow up.
I'm not saying you didn't have body issues, however this is unlikely to be one of them. You probably did not receive the message early on that only your attractiveness mattered and that you should only aspire to be pretty, and to accept the sleaze as part of your life.
I could go on, the point is these early messages have a profound impact on the psychological development of female bodied people. Trans-women do not as a whole experience these early sexist messages. Please remember this.
Unless science produces a goddamn miracle some day? You still will not have the equipment to become pregnant yourself. You are at no risk of reproductive coercion, being forcibly impregnated and forced to give birth, you absolutely cannot die in child birth. Please remember this if you wade into discussions of reproductive rights. There's nothing more fucking infuriating than a trans-woman who will never get pregnant, getting all up in my face about how they think I shouldn't have the right to choose whether to be pregnant or not, or worse being "pro-life" in a safe space.
Also? Your inability and desire to get pregnant? Not fucking relevant to my rights. I don't care if you would have a thousand children if you had a Uterus, you still don't get to tell me or anyone else who can get pregnant what we can do with ours. I won't tell you what to do with your body, so don't presume to tell me what I can do with mine.
Shit like this: http://jennifermccreath.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/nov-22-2011-mccreath-quits-pflag-over.html
Not cool. The idea that we might be able to tell if a fetus is trans in future (fairly unlikely I'd think), does not entitle you to be against the rights of people with Uteri, if you're worried that people might abort Trans fetuses in the unlikely event that a test is developed, work on education, not on banning abortion. Btw, I have the same fucking issue with disabled people who want to ban abortion because some people abort disabled fetuses. Anyone who advocates forced birth can fuck right off.
The other thing is? Displaying misogyny in women's spaces? Not cool either. Jennifer McCreath is rather fond of slut shaming, telling one transphobic woman that "clearly she had no issue putting Penises in her mouth/vagina" and commenting on how many times she'd been married, cos hey why call someone transphobic when you can call them a slut amiright? There's a billion and one insults that aren't based in misogyny, but often it's the misogynistic ones trans women go for.
There's other examples:
This was going so well, until the last line, because hey attacking Cathy's looks that's totally not misogynistic or based on the idea that only the outside matters. Cathy Brennan is a transphobic douche, but that doesn't make this misogyny okay.
More examples of Jennifer McCreath being misogynistic:
https://twitter.com/Jenn_McCreath/status/277054355180507136 She totes doesn't judge "slutty behaviour" but zomg "don't ask the taxpayer to pay for your abortion", cos hey supporting forcing people with uteri to give birth if you think they're slutty is so not misogynistic.
According to Jennifer the following people do not exist:
Trans men who are Gay.
Trans women who are Lesbians.
Bisexual female bodied people (I thought the B in GLBTQ gave it away).
Gender queer people who have a uterus.
And clearly rape never happens to female bodied people who are GLBTQ. Also there is absolutely no history of Trans people being forced to accept being sterilised in order to be entitled to be legally recognised as their gender. Nope, never happens at all.
Because of course since reproductive rights aren't relevant to her, our rights shouldn't be focused on as part of the LGBTQ fight. Cos hey, forcing a trans man to give birth, making a Lesbian cis woman carry a rape baby to term, ignoring bisexual female bodied people, forcing sterilisation on trans people, that isn't a problem for GLBTQ people, except yeah, it totally is unless you're Jennifer who doesn't think GLBTQ rights really matter unless they're relevant to her.
Hear that trans men? Your right to decide what to do with your body isn't a trans right, in fact it doesn't overlap at all according to Jennifer, and she thinks GLBTQ groups should not protect that right for you as a result of her belief that your right to control your body is not a trans right.
I know women's spaces can be transphobic, and that needs to change, but just because someone is pissed at societies bigotry doesn't mean it's okay for them to shit all over female bodied people. So let's see less misogyny, less telling people with Uteri what to do with them and more recognition that having gender privilege has had an impact on you even if you didn't want the privilege.
Oh and Jennifer McCreath can screw off with her "I don't give a shit about issues that don't affect me" crap, and misogyny towards female bodied people.