September 28, 2009

Another gem from Bilerico where one of the denizens has decided they get to tell women who they are. Despite repeated explanations on why it is bad form for men to dictate terms to women, the drumbeat goes on.

Phil Reese decided to take us to task for not accepting self-declared non-women into our midst, never mind that other women (the kind without a surgical background) do not accept them either. Apparently to Phil, our opinions do not rate as high as “real women’s” opinions. Now wouldn’t that seem to be bigotry? Here’s a brief look at some of the highlights:

“A debate has been raging this week on Bilerico about women like Rachel or Dallas, or men like my friend CJ in Michigan or Scott Turner-Schofield in Atlanta. Women are questioning whether or not Rachel is a woman. These were not women born women, “natal women,” or whatever term you prefer. These are “women of an operative past.” Some may call them transsexual women, but not everyone agrees with being labeled as transsexual. They transitioned, now they are women.”

Phil points out that we aren’t “natal” women in order to diminish our voices.

“I support choosing your own label, and applaud them for their courage. The only problem is some of these women don’t feel the same way.”

And so do I. You can label yourself however you like. What you cannot do is suddenly develop a birth condition. The argument is about who is “transsexual”, not who is a woman. This is typical sleight of hand in this discussion as is usual in GLBT circles.

“I appreciate what the women of operative past have been through, and support them as women. If you do not want to be called by a ‘trans-‘ term, I understand. You’ve struggled and you’ve had to deal with a lot of doubt and oppression.”

That’s mighty white of you Phil. I bet some of your friends are women of operative past too. But what are you really setting up?

“In an effort to understand some of these comments, I visited a linked blog–and right away was greeted with bad vibes in the title “TG Nonsense.” This is a woman who embarked on her own journey to be accepted as a woman. But now that she’s arrived, she seems to have a huge problem with people who are going about that passage in a different way.”

And what passage would that be? From what to what?

“According to Merriam-Webster, a bigot is “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

Here we go again.

“The disdain and dehumanizing language on this blog toward transgender people, and the smug iterations of how much better the author is because she ‘passes’ can be defined as nothing other than hate and intolerance. So, after reading the blog, I called it.”

There we are! Here come the silly accusations, the snide putdowns of “passing”, and the ever-present mantra of hatred and intolerance.

To anyone who doesn’t see it right off, Phil here has decided that my opinions as a woman don’t count the same as “natal women”, and therefore I am “bigoted” if I don’t accept that “transgender” is the same as “woman”.

First, I don’t care if somebody calls themselves a woman or whatever they want. I don’t have to accept you in my women’s space, and neither does anyone else. You pushing yourself where you aren’t wanted is a clear message of who you are though. Society will judge you, and those “real women” won’t put up with your misogynistic dictation either.

I do care, however, that some people try to say that they are “transsexual” when they obviously were not born with that birth defect. It is a simple thing. You either are, or you aren’t. All the pseudo-intellectualization in the world won’t change that.

A closing statement from Phil:

If you dehumanize someone you are a bigot. That’s what bigots do.”

I couldn’t agree more. And that’s why I look with outright horror on the entire GLBT; people like you come at us with nothing but hate and prejudice. Yes, I understand what bigotry is all too well, Phil.