US Government rules on Gender Identity

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby MacCruiskeen » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:34 pm

guruilla » Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:31 pm wrote:Those videos are refreshing, ta. :thumbsup



Yeah, she's a breath of fresh air. That editing style is slightly disorientating at first, but I really like it now. I also like the contrast between the way she dresses and speaks (as if she's just been wakened at 3 a.m. by a cold-calling Jehovah's Witness and is desperately trying to remain polite) and the real sharpness of her mind. She's fearless. And you will soon see that anti-hairstyle everywhere. (Damn... I'm developing a truly hopeless crush. :lol:)

It's become impossible for me to tell who's consciously pranking from who's suffering from runaway (because diagnosed and socially supported) narcissism (if there's a difference, which I suppose there isn't).

I am wondering if Narcissism could be the most widely unrecognized condition in the West, and Neo-Liberalism its Most Fully Realized Expression?



Well, increasingly I have my doubts about how useful this now-very-fashionable term -- this buzzword -- "narcissism" actually is. The same applies in spades to other unquestioned psychiatric labels, from "schizophrenic" to "bipolar", and yes "depression" too. They all function as termini rather than pointers, and therefore they obscure much more than they illuminate. I think all those terms are dead ends -- pseudo-diagnoses and thoughtstoppers that merely serve to accelerate processing and justify instant medication.

But it's late here, and that's a big topic for another thread. "Fannying About" will do me fine as a preliminary label for much of the carry-on she analyses at her YouTube channel: people (usually visibly highly-privileged Brits and Yanks) advertising themselves as their own Unique Personal Brand. Look at Me! I'm A Star! Don't YOU Want To Be A Star Too? - Neo-libs love that stuff, because: a) money, money, money, and b) distraction, confusion, self-doubt, worry, disorientation - therefore c) even more money, because it's well-known that those feelings can only be assuaged by buying more stuff, Atomisation is the name of the neoliberal game, and destruction of reason is an increasingly necessary step in achieving that end. People didn't use to be quite so stupid, because their lives (unless they had a ton of money) depended on them remaining at least halfway-rational and halfway-social, because they couldn't survive on fresh air or live in the Internet. Today everyone is encouraged to become Howard Hughes or Vegas-Era Elvis, and/or to die trying. (Cui bono?)

If feels like we have been so thoroughly engineered we can't see how we've become the butt of a hideous joke about to blow up in our face, with billions of casualties.

I think I'll get my coat.


Do YOU TOO Feel Like A Molecule Of H2O In A Pot Of Boiling Water? Help is at hand. Subscribe to my website for only $20 a month, and -

I think I'll get to my kip. Goodnight.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:49 am

This very recent piece is excellent, strongly and clearly argued, and not at all as boring as the title might make it sound. Numerous links in the original, and the comments section is very informative too (it amounts to a second, very good, sometimes horrifying, collective essay).

Layers of meaning: A Jungian analyst questions the identity model for trans-identified youth

by Lisa Marchiano

Posted on September 25, 2016

As a social worker and a Jungian analyst, I have become increasingly concerned about the rush to affirm children’s and young people’s transgender self-diagnosis, and then transition them to the opposite sex. I am particularly worried about social and medical transition among teens whose transgender diagnosis arose “out of the blue,” without a significant history of early childhood dysphoria. I fear that, via their well-meaning desire to validate young people in pain, therapists are discarding basic principles of psychotherapeutic care.

[..]

I fear that there are young people transitioning – with the ready help of therapists, doctors, and others – who may regret these interventions and need to come to terms with permanent and in some cases drastic changes to their bodies. In fact, I know this is already happening. I have had considerable contact with the growing community of detransitioners. In many cases, the hatred for and disconnection from their bodies that these young people experienced was due to sexual trauma, internalized homophobia, or bullying. In videos and blogs, young women speak about their sadness over their lost voices and breasts. Male detransitioners mourn the loss of their testicles, the loss of their ability to orgasm, in some cases the loss of their fertility. Many have had complications from hormones such as vaginal atrophy, nerve damage, or chronic pain. You can hear some of these stories for yourself here, here, and here, among other places.

I have also spoken with many parents. Their stories are just as heartbreaking. These usually involve a teen who was anxious, depressed, socially isolated, or suffering from PTSD coming to identify as trans after internet binges on social media sites. These parents report that mental health professionals are validating the self-diagnosis of transgender after a handful of therapy sessions, without any exploration of prior mental health issues, trauma, sexual orientation, or history of gender nonconforming behavior. This clearly violates APA recommendations, which urge special caution in treating adolescents who present with sudden onset dysphoria.

[...]

Continues here: https://4thwavenow.com/2016/09/25/layer ... ied-youth/


For those of you who remember the Jani Schofield thread: maybe you'll see some parallels between the "transing" of very young people and that appalling diagnosis of "childhood schizophrenia" - in the medicalisation of dissidence, and in the way the US mass media covers both issues (namely, in a dense layer of sugar).
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:44 am

Image

Two Frontenac men charged with rape, threatening to 'waterboard' woman if she refused sex

By Joel Currier St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sep 13, 2016 (…)

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/two-frontenac-men-charged-with-rape-threatening-to-waterboard-woman/article_4ff423ef-f049-5ff6-a381-39ba6e36ae10.html?

FRONTENAC • Two Frontenac men were charged Monday with raping a woman after threatening to "waterboard" her, and recording the attack.

Alexander Doering and Jeremiah Horsfall-Steinbrenner, both 22, of the 11100 block of South Forty Drive, were charged with first-degree rape and felonious restraint, and held in lieu of $200,000 cash-only bail.

The woman reported to police about 7:40 a.m. Sunday that she was raped at the men's trailer overnight after being taken there "under false pretenses."

Frontenac police said the woman went to the trailer to get her computer repaired.

The charges say the suspects showed her handcuffs, a water pitcher and a towel and threatened torture unless she had sex. They also allegedly locked her out of her cellphone by changing its password.

Doering recorded the sex on Horsfall-Steinbrenner's cellphone, the charges say. Officials said the victim escaped after the men fell asleep.

Frontenac police Detective Timothy Duda said the woman is at least 17. He would not say if she knew the men.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:53 am

Facebook page of second man Jeremiah Horsfall-Steinbrenner/ Alyssa Renee Horsfall-Steinbrenner


Image
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby American Dream » Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:42 am

Dean Spade Quotes

“The average life span of a transgendered person is twenty-three years. The statistic is shocking, until it begins to make sense. Gender non-conformists face routine exclusion and violence. Transgendered people are disproportionately poor, homeless, and incarcerated. Many of the systems and facilities intended to help low-income people are sex-segregated and thereby alienate those who don’t comply with state-imposed categories. A trans woman may not be able to secure a bed in a homeless shelter, for example. Spade writes that just as the feminist movement tended to “focus on gender-universalized white women’s experience as ‘women’s experience,’” the lesbian- and gay-rights movement has focused primarily on a white, middle-class politic, centered on marriage and mainstream social mores."

Guernica / Trans-Formative Change

Dean Spade is the first openly trans law professor. Meaghan Winter interviews him for Guernica.


“Trans people are told by the law, state agencies, private discriminators, and our families that we are impossible people who cannot exist, cannot be seen, cannot be classified, and cannot fit anywhere. We are told by the better-funded lesbian and gay rights groups, as they continually leave us aside, that we are not politically viable our lives are not a political possibility that can be conceived. Inside this impossibility, I argue, lies our specific political potential—a potential to formulate demands and strategies to meet those demands that exceed the containment of neoliberal politics. A critical trans politics is emerging that refuses empty promises of “equal opportunity” and “safety” underwritten by settler colonialism, racist, sexist, classist, ableist, and xenophobic imprisonment, and ever-growing wealth disparity. This politics aims to center the concerns and leadership of the most vulnerable to build transformative change through mobilization. It is reconceptualizing the role of law reform in social movements, acknowledging that legal equality demands are a feature of systemic injustice, not a remedy. It is confronting the harms that come to trans people at the hands of violent systems structured through law itself—not by demanding recognition and inclusion in those systems, but by working to dismantle them while simultaneously supporting those most exposed to their harms.”

— Dean Spade, Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law, p 41


“Capitalism is fundamentally invested in notions of scarcity, encouraging people to feel that we never have enough so that we will act out of greed and hording and focus on accumulation. Indeed, the romance myth is focused on scarcity: There is only one person out there for you!!! You need to find someone to marry before you get too old!!!! The sexual exclusivity rule is focused on scarcity, too: Each person only has a certain amount of attention or attraction or love or interest, and if any of it goes to someone besides their partner their partner must lose out. We don’t generally apply this rule to other relationships—we don’t assume that having two kids means loving the first one less or not at all, or having more than one friend means being a bad or fake or less interested friend to our other friends. We apply this particular understanding of scarcity to romance and love, and most of us internalize that feeling of scarcity pretty deeply…

We are interested in resisting the heteronormative family structure in which people are expected to form a dyad, marry, have kids, and get all their needs met within that family structure. A lot of us see that as unhealthy, as a new technology of post-industrial late capitalism that is connected to alienating people from community and training them to think in terms of individuality, to value the smaller unit of the nuclear family rather than the extended family.”


— Dean Spade, For Lovers and Fighters


“Shitty liberal culture tells us to be blind to differences amongst people, and stupid romance myths tell us love is blind. But for folks who have radical politics, and recognize that identity is a major vector of privilege and oppression, we know that love and sex and culture are not blind to difference, but rather that difference play a major role in sex and romance and family structure. We also understand that experiencing and acknowledging the identities we live in and are perceived in is important, and finding community with other people who are like us can be empowering and healing. For that reason, a lot of us may want to experiment in those ways, too. For instance, we may be in a relationship we are super into, but then want to have an experience outside that relationship with someone who shares a characteristic with us that our partner doesn’t, whether that be race, language, age, class background, ability, trans identity, or something else. Our radical politics tell us we don’t have to pretend that those things don’t matter, and that we can honor the different connections we get to have with people based on shared or different identities. If we love our partners and friends, it makes sense that we would want them to have experiences that are affirming or important for them in those ways, and not let rules of sexual exclusivity make us into barriers for each other’s personal development.”

-Dean Spade, For Lovers and Fighters


From its roots in bottle-throwing resistance to police brutality and the claiming of queer sexual public space, the focus of lesbian and gay rights work moved toward the more conservative model of equality promoted in US law and culture through the myth of equal opportunity. The thrust of the work of these organizations became the quest for inclusion in and recognition by dominant US institutions rather than questioning and challenging the fundamental inequalities promoted by those institutions. The key agenda items became anti-discrimination laws focused on employment (e.g., the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA], as well as equivalent state statutes), military inclusion, decriminalization of sodomy, hate crime laws, and a range of reforms focused on relationship recognition that increasingly narrowed to focus on the legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Participatory forms of organizing, such as nonprofessional membership-based grassroots organizations, were replaced by hierarchical, staff-run organizations operated by people with graduate degrees. Broad concerns with policing and punishment, militarism and wealth distribution taken up by some earlier manifestations of lesbian and gay activism were replaced with a focus on formal legal equality that could produce gains only for people already served by existing social and economic arrangements. For example, choosing to frame equal access to health care through a demand for same-sex marriage rights means fighting for health care access that would only affect people with jobs is that include health care benefits they can share with a partner, which is an increasingly uncommon privilege. Similarly, addressing the economic marginalization of queer people solely through the lens of anti-discrimination laws that bar discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation - despite the facts that these laws have been ineffective at eradicating discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, and national origin, and that most people do not have access to the legal resources needed to enforce these kinds of rights - has been criticized as marking an investment in formal legal equality while ignoring the plight of the most economically marginalized queers. Framing issues related to child custody through a lens of marital recognition, similarly, means ignoring the racist, sexist, and classist operation of the child welfare system and passing up opportunities to form coalitions across populations targeted for family dissolution by that system. Black people, indigenous people, people with disabilities, queer and trans people, prisoners, and poor people face enormous targeting in the child welfare systems. Seeking “family recognition” rights through marriage, therefore, means seeking such rights only for queer and trans people who can actually expect to be protected by that institution. Since the availability of marriage does not protect straight people of color, poor people, prisoners, or people with disabilities from having their families torn apart by child welfare systems, it is unlikely to do so for queer poor people, queer people of color, queer prisoners, and queer people with disabilities. The quest for marriage seems to have far fewer benefits, then, for queers whose families are targets of state violence and who have no spousal access to health care or immigration status, and seems to primarily benefit those whose race, class, immigration, and ability privilege would allow them to increase their well-being by incorporation into the government’s privileged relationship status. The framing of marriage as the most essential legal need of queer people, and as the method through which queer people can obtain key benefits in many realms, ignores how race, class, ability, indigeneity, and immigration status determine access to those benefits and reduces the gay rights agenda to a project of restoring race, class, ability and immigration status privilege to the most privileged gays and lesbians.


Dean Spade in the chapter “Trans Law and Politics on a Neoliberal Landscape” in his book Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law, 60-62.


Trans resistance is emerging in a context of neoliberal politics where the choice to struggle for nothing more than incorporation into the neoliberal order is the most obvious option. We can translate the pain of having community members murdered every month into more punishing power for the criminal system that targets us. We can fight to have the state declare us equal through anti-discrimination laws, yet watch as the majority of trans people remain unemployed, incapable of getting ID, kept out of social services and health care, and consigned to prisons that guarantee sexual assault and medical neglect. Abandonment and imprisonment remain the offers of neoliberalism for all but a few trans people, yet law reform strategies beckon us to join the neoliberal order. The paths to equality laid out by the “successful” lesbian and gay rights model to which we are assumed to aspire have little to offer us in terms of concrete change to our life chances; what they offer instead is the legitimization and expansion of systems that are killing us.

—Dean Spade. “Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law”


“While nondiscrimination policies may provide remedies in some important contexts, they do not address the broader problem that prevents gender, self-determination and creates daily dangerous and deadly situations for poor, gender-transgressive people: the existence of legal gender classification. The choice to pursue nondiscrimination policies (to the extend that LGBT movements have included gender identity in the nondiscrimination legislation they have drafted at all) rather than to pursue a strategy of deregulating gender in state agencies, with service providers, and with regard to government-issued identification suggests an adoption of this lesser demand. This choice, most importantly, ignores the daily struggles that disproportionately impact low-income gender-transgressive people and fails to meaningfully oppose the state regulation of gender that tends to make room only for those gender-transgressive people who can afford medical intervention to bring them into line with the state’s construction of male or female gender.”
— Dean Spade, “Compliance is Gendered,” in “Transgender Rights.


Image
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:05 am

Ignoring everything everyone else says is already an impressive use of a Discussion Board. (Winning hearts and minds.) Posting giant wedges of other people's words, without comment, is always a knockdown argument. But putting it all in bold type is just irresistible. It's a master class in how to conduct a debate.

Game over. There's nothing more to be said about this issue. American Dream has won. This thread can be shut down now.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby guruilla » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:34 pm

MacCruiskeen » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:34 pm wrote:Well, increasingly I have my doubts about how useful this now-very-fashionable term -- this buzzword -- "narcissism" actually is. The same applies in spades to other unquestioned psychiatric labels, from "schizophrenic" to "bipolar", and yes "depression" too. They all function as termini rather than pointers, and therefore they obscure much more than they illuminate. I think all those terms are dead ends -- pseudo-diagnoses and thoughtstoppers that merely serve to accelerate processing and justify instant medication.

Labels are problematic, not least because they carry the baggage of institution & ideology that spawns them. But it was useful for me, momentarily, to see a larger context for all of these strange contortions which the culture is performing and attempting to force us into mimetic lockstep with, that they all seem to come down to a solipsistic self-regard and the pushing of personal fantasy/phantasy/delusion as Ultimate Reality, at least until the next identity fad takes a hold of the traumatized psyche and causes a different attention-deficited fragment to push itself into the frontal position.

Interesting how transgender (the belief that one has another, suppressed identity that needs to be given expression) closely echoes DID, another diagnosis admittedly, but one that at least acknowledges the reality of psychic fragmentation, as well as tying into organized abuse for purposes of fragmentation, and the psychological and social control which it allows for.

MacCruiskeen wrote:Atomisation is the name of the neoliberal game, and destruction of reason is an increasingly necessary step in achieving that end. People didn't use to be quite so stupid, because their lives (unless they had a ton of money) depended on them remaining at least halfway-rational and halfway-social, because they couldn't survive on fresh air or live in the Internet. Today everyone is encouraged to become Howard Hughes or Vegas-Era Elvis, and/or to die trying. (Cui bono?)

Neoliberal is also a label, and though I use it myself (in desperation) I am trying not to as I find it only increases the polarization & atomization that's the apparent goal of these ideologically indifferent social engineers, the goal of total fragmentation & total control at any cost, by any means, using any and all avocation of values to achieve it. The main thing is that we get tricked and confused into adopting values (labels, with all the Trojan-horsed baggage they contain) in lieu of actual experiencial knowledge that refers to an internal sense of what's what (ie, male or female).

Once people have been sufficiently colonized by an ideology, whichever wing it is, they no longer see data points as data points or evidence as evidence; they only see arguments that are in favor of their beliefs or against them. Discussions (i.e., threads at RI) correspondingly become less and less information dense, and more and more feeling-heavy (or toxic), as solipsisms meet solipsisms and irresistible force meets immovable object, over and over again, until it's all noise, no signal. This is not meant as a complaint, more of an observation; at the deeper level it's all data.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby American Dream » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:34 pm

Žižek’s Trans/gender Trouble

By Che Gossett SEPTEMBER 13, 2016

RECENTLY I STOOD in the binary-gendered bathroom line at New York Penn Station, a site already made affectively intense by its operation as a gauntlet — the military and NYPD assembled with machine guns and dogs scanning for threats of terror underneath American flags. In addition to the racialized figure of the “terrorist,” they also honed in on another threat to the sovereignty of the settler colonial nation-state — the potential disruptor of the binary bathroom. It was not me whom they read as a threat, though; it was an older nontrans white woman. She had decided to merge into the men’s room line because it was shorter. When she entered the threshold of the “men’s room,” the cis men in the bathroom — all white — protested: “Get her out of here!” One of the bathroom facilities attendants called to the police. The “offender” was physically sacorted out of the men’s room by a police officer: “You’re in the wrong line,” he said. He refused to hear her plea: “I just want to go to the bathroom!” (Althusserian interpellation indeed.) She experienced the violence of policing that gender nonconforming and trans people — especially of color — are subjected to on a daily basis.

Gender nonconforming and trans people have been organizing against that violence since even before Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson articulated an unapologetically insurgent trans political horizon in the early 1970s. Expansion toward this horizon continues now in the collective work of trans abolitionist knowledge, power, and theory.

Image

In his recent essay for The Philosophical Salon, “The Sexual Is Political” (what an epiphany!), Slavoj Žižek claims that what he calls “transgenderism” in his pathologizing political grammar is a product of a futuristic “postgenderism.” He claims:

The vision of social relations that sustains transgenderism is the so-called postgenderism: a social, political and cultural movement whose adherents advocate a voluntary abolition of gender, rendered possible by recent scientific progress in biotechnology and reproductive technologies.


In fact, trans and gender nonconforming people are situated (like the violence of the gender binary which we oppose) within the theoretical and political coordinates of history and history’s present tense — the afterlife of slavery and colonialism.

Žižek ignores the fact that we can’t think the gender binary outside of the context of racial slavery and colonialism within which it was forged. Žižek also leaves unthought the entire scope of trans studies in general and trans of color critique in particular. He ignores the ways in which the gender binary is imbricated in racial slavery and colonization, and he perpetuates an epistemic erasure of the entire scope of trans studies in general, and queer and trans of color critique especially. He also enacts a historical erasure of queer and trans left theory and praxis — especially of color — as eroticopolitical worlding. How does one manage to write about trans subjectivity with such assumed authority while ignoring the voices of trans theorists (academics and activists) entirely — especially when the very issues of psychoanalysis and neoliberalism he discusses have already been subjects of scholarly inquiry in trans studies itself? Finally, Žižek never seems to consider that the very object of critique — such as neoliberal trans subjectivity — is actually what trans left movements have been organizing against and beyond for many years.


https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/ziz ... r-trouble/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:26 pm

Neoliberal is also a label, and though I use it myself (in desperation)


Yeah but there's nothing else. Capitalism (a system, not a label) underwent an ideological line-shift around 1973 to 9ish that is identifiable and consistent. Wherever and whomeber we are, among our other troubles (ooh intersectional) we're all fighting a logic that states itself in terms of the private market as virtue and truth. It's everywhere and in our heads too and it needs a name. I've sought for alternatives as well, cos people often don't get it. Problematic as it is (because it's, gasp, of academic origin) it's the only word to cover it. Once you see it, it's everywhere. It's even on the subway platform at Times Square, where the canned message announces on the arrival of every train: "Let the customers off the train first." What the hell, customers? We're fucking passengers and we always were.

Trump/Clinton has many aspects of feeling like peak, and therefore decline, but then again so did Caligula/Nero and that shit kept going for another 400 years after.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby American Dream » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:56 pm

An important moment in the struggle against Sexism and Transphobia, and for Total Liberation:

http://caringlabor.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... de-speech/

Hackney Pride speech

Jamrat Mason [Sept. 2010] [Saliva Click]



My speech at Hackney Pride did pretty well. I’ve had some requests for the transcript so I said I would post it here. People were really lovely and I certainly wasn’t expecting a standing ovation- so thanks to everyone who came, here’s to hoping that some real community organising and action will come out of it. I’ve also included the paragraph that I scribbled out on the bus down there because I was worried about length. That paragraph is in purple. Nick, reproduce, bastardise as much as you like, just remember to give me a lickle credit.

Image


My name is Jasper Murphy and I have a vagina. I’m involved in East London Community Activism but today I’m here to speak “as a trans person” about transgender issues. The term “transgender” is a broad term that refers to to a massive spectrum of people who in some way veer away from the gender written on their birth certificate. So, I cannot, in any way whatsoever, be representative of transgendered people. I can only talk about the world as I see it, from where I’m standing, as a transexual.

I’m a lucky tranny. First of all because I’m alive. And secondly because I have a family who loves me. That shouldn’t be lucky, but at the moment, it is. My own experience is quite unique so I thought I’d give you a quick history: At 3 years old my first sentence was “I’m a boy”, at 7 years old when I was still convinced that this was true, my parents took me to a psychologist. The psychologist said I probably have “Gender Dysphoria”. My parents talked to my school and allowed me to cut my hair and wear a boy’s uniform. When I was 8 I was referred on to a specialist in London (on the NHS) who I saw until I was 18. When I was 12 I legally changed my name which my granny paid for. So I’ve been living as male since I was about 7 or 8. I went through a full female puberty and eventually got testosterone when I was 21. I had surgery when I was 22. I’m 24 now so I’ve looked like this for about 2 years.

It’s not my intention to simple ask for a complacent acceptance of trans people- for people to just stop insulting us and beating us up… I want to talk about transphobia as an issue that affects all of us- and that we can all play a part in fighting. We must, as a society, be better at gender.

In the womb we all start off as female. People who come out as little boys are changed during the pregnancy when testosterone is introduced. The clitoris grows and becomes penis, and the labia becomes a scrotum. Woman are so-called because they’re meant to be like men, but with wombs- womb-man. But in reality, men are women with big clitorises. Bigclits. Most people come out with either a vagina or a penis, but some people are somewhere inbetween- these people are ‘intersex’. As soon as we’re born boys and girls are treated drasticallly differently- boys are given lego, girls are given dolls (and then people wonder about the lack of female engineers); girls are encouraged to care and talk about their feelings, whilst boys are told to be tough. Every boy and girl, to some extent, has to grapple with the difference between who they are, and what a Real Man is. What a Real Woman is. Every body suffers from the invention of the Man and the Woman. And I consider myself an extreme casualty of this- I don’t really consider myself a Man- but I know, violently, that I’m not a woman. I think that transpeople generally are an extreme casualty of this problem.

Society is organised into men and women and I don’t fit into either. If I were to have to go to prison, I could either be a man in an all female prison, or a man with a vagina in an all male-prison where privacy is not exactly a priority. If I were to be arrested and strip-searched I’ve got a choice between a male officer or a female police officer. But I’m not a man, that is not my sex, I am a transexual. There is now a Gender Recognition Certificate so that I can be recognised as either a Man or a Woman by the state. But I am not a Man or a Woman, I am a transexual. I could be treated as a man, go to a male prison, be searched by a male officer, get married to a woman. But I don’t want to get married, I don’t want to live in a society where people are sent to prison and strip searched by police. I don’t believe in leading a fight where we’re asking to government to deal with us more efficiently, to oppress us better. I don’t want to be integrated better a rotten system, a want something different altogether. I want to take part in creating a better world.

Prejudice against transmen, that’s me, is based on the sense that we’re trying to muscle in on the privilege of being male that we don’t deserve, we are inadequate, we don’t have penises, and if we do, they’re either weird and tiny or crap. We’re inadequate men, with big bums and crap willies.

Prejudice against transwomen is based on the sense that they’re degrading themselves, they’re funny, a joke, why would you want to be a woman? They’re trying to take a step down in society.

So transphobia is rooted in sexism. Some people believe that transwomen can’t possibly know what it’s like to be a woman because they haven’t experienced sexism. But the transphobia that transwoman get IS sexism, multiplied by a hundred!

Some people say that trans men are just trying to escape sexism by turning into men. Let me tell you, when you’re a transexual, you do not escape sexism, you are pushed right into an enormous swamp of sexism. When you experience both sides and more, you begin to see the sexism, you notice it when other people don’t, when you play with gender you’re witnessing the flow of power.

Sexism, and more specifically this form of sexism which is a reaction to people’s gender deviance- not being a Proper Man, or a Proper Woman, is something that seems to be ignored. It plays a huge part in homophobia- A gay boy, who is very masculine and handy with his fists is not likely to be bullied at school. School kids don’t usually see what their school mates find sexually attractive, they see how they behave. Effeminate boys are bullied for being effeminate- and the words the kids use are gay, and batty boy, but they’re being bullied because they’re not acting like Real Men, this is sexism, but we call it homophobia. And when you call it homophobia, what organisations are there helping the effeminate straight boy? He’s being told that it’s okay to be gay, but no one’s saying that it’s okay to be a bit girly. This is the same bullying that transexual people experience in the extreme, but it is in no way reserved for us.

The experience of transgendered people is at the lethally sharp end of the wedge- and it is a lethally sharp edge, the Transgender Day of Remembrance website shows that in 2009 130 transgendered people were reported murdered- but this is a universal problem, rooted in sexism, it affects all os us and we can all take a part in fighting it.

The invention of the Real Man and the Real Woman is enshrined in the economy. For as long as someone has to work all week to get a wage, to survive, and for as long as we have babies that have to be looked after, someone else has to work in the home, and bring up babies for free. At the moment, most of the time, the man works full time and the woman works for free in the home. It’s the unpaid labour that keeps the whole system running. Take it away, and the whole thing collapses. But that won’t change by messing around with gender, or by swapping it around and turning the patriarchy into a matriarchy, or mixing it up, or by taking turns… or by paying another woman minimum wage to do the job instead. For as long as this system keeps going, someone has to work in the home for free. And this is one of the most fundamental injustices the forms the foundation of our economy. As much as transgendered people might highlight that these are not two unchanging natural roles, a liberal plea for tolerance is not the force that will bring it down.

I want to come back to this idea that we need to, as a society, as a community, be better at gender. The transition from one gender role to another is not just about surgery, in fact surgery plays a very small role in it. For the most part, transition is social, because gender roles are social. As I mentioned before, I lived for 12 years as male without any surgery or hormones whatsoever. I now fit into the category of male because people call me ‘he’ and regard me as male. The fact that transition is social seems to be lost on most people, when someone comes out as trans, people tend to wait until that person is manly, or womanly, enough to convince them. The onus is put on the trans person to “act like a man” or “act like a woman” just to have their identity respected. This often means, that for transmen, we are rewarded for acting like macho idiots, for only then will people respect our identity. It should be everyone’s responsibility to respect someone’s identity, to play a part in the journey to becoming comfortable in their skin.

What is it we want with our Pride Marches and our activism?

The freedom to walk down the street, dressed how you like, kissing who you like, in a couple of expensive areas of central and west London? What about kissing in Clapton? Stratford? East Ham? What about being free in our working class communities where we actually live? When will we be free to express our love, our gender, our bodies without fear of being beaten up by gangs of teenage boys? And what about those teenage boys? Our neighbours? When will that teenage boy feel free to suck off his mate, or wear a dress, without fear of complete rejection or without thinking that that would make him an entirely different person?

It might be tempting, for those middle class homosexuals who have achieved their freedom, who are happily walking hand in hand down their little street in Hampstead, to pull the ladder up behind them and not be associated with transgenders, with us deviants, or with us working class queers in areas like Hackney, who still live surrounded by homophobia, transphobia, sexism. I think we can see that temptation when we look at what London Pride has become. And that’s why it’s important to have events like this, to keep our grassroots activism, and not accept anything less than absolute and complete freedom
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Project Willow » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:23 pm




Ah yes, Judith Butler, the veritable mother of Queer Theory, formulator of solipsistic, parodic subversion in all its neoliberal, anti-materialist glory.

In response, I give you Martha Nussbaum, whose philosophy is rooted in a desire to challenge structural systems of injustice.

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Nussbaum-Butler-Critique-NR-2-99.pdf

She [Butler] suggests that the institutional structures that ensure the marginalization of
lesbians and gay men in our society, and the continued inequality of women, will never be
changed in a deep way; and so our best hope is to thumb our noses at them, and to find
pockets of personal freedom within them. "Called by an injurious name, I come into social
being, and because I have a certain inevitable attachment to my existence, because a certain
narcissism takes hold of any term that confers existence, I am led to embrace the terms that
injure me because they constitute me socially." In other words: I cannot escape the
humiliating structures without ceasing to be, so the best I can do is mock, and use the
language of subordination stingingly. In Butler, resistance is always imagined as personal,
more or less private, involving no unironic, organized public action for legal or institutional
change.


Isn't this like saying to a slave that the institution of slavery will never change,
but you can find ways of mocking it and subverting it, finding your personal freedom within
those acts of carefully limited defiance? Yet it is a fact that the institution of slavery can be
changed, and was changed--but not by people who took a Butler-like view of the possibilities.
It was changed because people did not rest content with parodic performance: they demanded,
and to some extent they got, social upheaval. It is also a fact that the institutional structures
that shape women's lives have changed. The law of rape, still defective, has at least improved;
the law of sexual harassment exists, where it did not exist before; marriage is no longer
regarded as giving men monarchical control over women's bodies. These things were changed
by feminists who would not take parodic performance as their answer, who thought that
power, where bad, should, and would, yield before justice.

Butler not only eschews such a hope, she takes pleasure in its impossibility. She
finds it exciting to contemplate the alleged immovability of power, and to envisage the ritual
subversions of the slave who is convinced that she must remain such. She tells us--this is the
central thesis of The Psychic Life of Power--that we all eroticize the power structures that
oppress us, and can thus find sexual pleasure only within their confines. It seems to be for that
reason that she prefers the sexy acts of parodic subversion to any lasting material or
institutional change. Real change would so uproot our psyches that it would make sexual
satisfaction impossible. Our libidos are the creation of the bad enslaving forces, and thus
necessarily sadomasochistic in structure.



Centering resistance entirely within a personal conception and performance of self is a failed strategy whose adoption is leading to the rise of a left authoritarianism, which in turn is feeding the growth of the alt right movement. Interestingly, your embrace of Butler's theories helps explain your own authoritarian impulses as exemplified on this board, your tendency to label those with whom you disagree as racists or transphobes, and to cling to these derogatory and dehumanizing condemnations of character in the face of all evidence to the contrary, wielding them as shaming and silencing cudgels. Of course there can be no respectful debate when a difference of opinion is experienced as a threat to the self, and is interpreted as a signal of the inherent goodness or evilness of an opponent. When speech is equated with physical violence it can no longer be protected, and that is exactly what is happening with legislation in Canada and the US.

American Dream » 19 Oct 2016 13:43 wrote:
JB: I have never agreed with Sheila Jeffreys or Janice Raymond, and for many years have been on quite the contrasting side of feminist debates. She appoints herself to the position of judge, and she offers a kind of feminist policing of trans lives and trans choices. I oppose this kind of prescriptivism, which seems me to aspire to a kind of feminist tyranny.


Oh, the irony...



User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:53 pm

"Let the customers off the train first." What the hell, customers? We're fucking passengers and we always were.


Yes, Jack, but don't you feel more dignified now while hanging on that strap at rush hour? You're no mere passenger* but a customer. The customer is king! He's the boss! It's your subway!

Labels matter, certainly. Language is crucial. It is (among much else) an obvious tool of power, a weapon. Obvious example: the n-word. It's real social progress that that term is now taboo, Same with derogatory terms for homosexuals. Et cetera. But how much energy is now diverted into endless quibbling about correct forms of address? How much patience -- and solidarity -- is eroded in the process? Example: "My preferred pronoun is 'ze'." Is that viable, that language? Should Otherkins, too, be listened to with endless patience? If not, why not? I, by the way, am a God in a man's body. My preferred form of address is "Lord". I have a right not be misgendered by you, so please respect my choice.

Exaggerated? Sure, but not much. You see where this is leading. Atomisation, bafflement, silent exasperation, and probably an eventual explosion. (Magdalen Berns is already sick to death of the bullshit, of the bamboozlement, and is therefore being accused of "hate crime", which is itself a bullshit accusation. It's unreal.)

Meanwhile, class relations remain unaltered, except that everyone is distracted and demoralised and confused while the talk goes on talking and the rich carry on getting richer. This is one reason we're now in post-reality: because we are (most of us) still relatively privileged, and can therefore still live much of our life in purely symbolic zones, in language zones, in virtuality. Reality is elsewhere, in war zones, for instance, and in slums and sweatshops and prisons, etc. and it's probably soon coming back here too (with a vengeance). Because how could it not?

Caught in a web of words.

... and I'm blathering on about this on the Interweb. Yes, I'm aware of the irony. Blah. Goodnight.



* Imagine the discussions while they planned the change: "Hmm, 'passenger' connotes passivity... not good, not good .. Thinking outside the box here... - Hey, we could say "driver" instead. Couldn't we tell the passengers they're all drivers now? Steve? ...Too radical?"
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby American Dream » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:14 pm

http://monthlyreview.org/2012/11/01/que ... -abolition

Queer Liberation Means Prison Abolition

Victoria Law

Joey L. Mogul, Andrea J. Ritchie, and Kay Whitlock, Queer (In)Justice: The Criminalization of LGBT People in the United States (Boston: Beacon Press, 2011), 240 pages, $27.95, hardcover.

In 1513, en route to Panama, Spanish conquistador Vasco Nunez de Balboa ordered forty Quaraca men to be ripped apart by his hunting dogs. Their offense? Being “dressed as women” and having sexual relations with each other. The homophobia and transphobia behind Balboa’s actions are far from arcane relics of the past, and violence against LGBTQ people continues to this day, both legally sanctioned and in the streets.

In 2008, Duanna Johnson, a black transgender woman, was arrested for a prostitution-related offense in Memphis. At the jail, she was brutally beaten by a police officer. Her beating was caught on videotape, leading to the firing of two officers. Johnson filed a civil suit against the police department but, less than six months later, was found shot in the head a few blocks from her house. This was the third killing of a black transgender woman in Memphis in 2008 alone, and her murder remains unsolved.

Queer (In)Justice examines the violence that LGBTQ people face regularly, from attacks on the street to institutionalized violence from police and prisons. The three authors are long-time advocates and attorneys who work directly with people impacted by incarceration. Joey L. Mogul, a partner at Chicago’s People’s Law Office and Director of the Civil Rights Clinic at DePaul University, has advocated for LGBTQ people ensnared in the criminal legal system. Andrea Ritchie is a police misconduct attorney, organizer, and coordinator of Streetwise and Safe, a New York City organization focused on gender, race, sexuality, and poverty-based policing and criminalization of LGBTQ youth of color. Kay Whitlock has worked for almost forty years to build bridges between LGBTQ struggles and movements fighting for racial, gender, economic, and environmental justice. Together, they center race, class, and gender/gender nonconformity in analyzing the myriad ways in which LGBTQ people have been policed, prosecuted, and punished from colonial times to the present day.

Criminalizing archetypes of LGBTQ people routinely inform policing, judgment, punishment, responses to violence against queers, and perceptions of queer people in general. These archetypes include: the perception of queers as mentally unstable, the assertion that LGBTQ are constantly trying to “lure” heterosexuals into gender transgression, and the misleading notion that violence is an inherent part of queers’ personality. According to these archetypes, serial killers John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Aileen Wuornos killed because they were gay. “Of course,” the authors say, “no such equivalence is suggested in the case of white heterosexual men who kill.” Thus, heterosexual murderers like Ted Bundy and Gary Ridgway are not seen as being driven by an innate, heterosexual murderous nature.

Race, class, and/or gender non-conformity are used by these archetypes to heighten fears, as demonstrated by the media frenzy against the New Jersey Four in 2006. Seven young black lesbians were accosted by Dwayne Buckle; when they refused his advances, he threatened to “fuck them straight,” choked them, ripped hair from their scalps, and spat on them. The women defended themselves and were assisted by two male onlookers. During the struggle, Buckle was stabbed. The women were arrested and charged with attempted murder by the police. That they were black, working class, and gender nonconforming made the women ideal targets for both the media and the prosecution who framed them as a “lesbian wolf pack.” Police refused to credit their statements, those of other witnesses, and ultimately the testimony of Buckle himself (who said that the two unknown men were the ones responsible for stabbing him). Three of the seven accepted plea bargains; the remaining four women received sentences ranging from three-and-a-half to eleven years in prison.

The policing and prison systems are, of course, not the only source of anti-gay violence. The authors note, “While the use of these archetypal narratives by the machinery of the state is often grotesque, their chronic, low-grade presence in daily conversation about crime, safety and justice for queer people is no less deadly.” For the New Jersey Four, what should have been a fun night out in the West Village became fraught with violence from both an individual stranger on the street as well as the police and prison system.

Queer (In)Justice acknowledges that deep-seated prejudices and fears of queer people cannot be dismantled via hate crime legislation. The authors say that “many of the individuals who engage in such violence are encouraged to do so by mainstream society through promotion of laws, practices, generally accepted prejudices, and religious views,” and they note that homophobic and transphobic violence generally increases during highly visible, right-wing political attacks. For example, in 2007, as the state’s attorney general was concluding a three-year campaign against domestic partnership, Michigan saw the largest increase (207%) in anti-LGBTQ violence reported to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (a national network of organizations that provide services to and advocate on behalf of queer people). Even hate-crime legislation, while allowing for enhanced criminal penalties, does nothing to dismantle the anti-gay politicking and preaching that encourages violence.

But even if queer people and communities recognize the policing and prison systems as perpetrators of violence, how can they keep safe? Noting that “there are no easy, one-size-fits-all answers to the question of how best to move forward—and no single vision of what change could ultimately look like,” the book offers examples of community organizing against homophobic- and transphobic-rooted violence that do not rely on further policing or punishment-based legislation.

In San Francisco, Community United Against Violence and the Bay Area Police Watch Project partnered to form TransAction. This group not only organizes against police abuse of trans people, but also builds an analysis of the policing of gender and sexual nonconformity among anti-police brutality activists who do not normally work around queer issues. They have also allied with communities of color struggling against race-based policing.

In Chicago’s Uptown, Queer to the Left (Q2L)—a multiracial, grassroots group of LGBTQ people—joined neighborhood groups campaigning against increasing police misconduct that accompanied the gentrification of the neighborhood. Highlighting and countering the systemic changes in zoning laws, lending patterns, and housing markets that force existing residents out, they advocate for building low-income housing in the area. They also challenge calls for intensified policing of youth of color in the area by the more affluent incoming residents, both queer and straight.

Queer (In)Justice is an important book both for LGBTQ people and their allies, as well as activists organizing against policing and prisons. It fills the gap in existing literature about how and why the police and prison systems repress LGBTQ people, particularly those further marginalized by race, class, and/or gender nonconformity. By tracing the history of how LGBTQ people have been criminalized and punished up to current-day policing and imprisonment policies, it also adds queer voices and experiences to the discussions and existing literature about policing and prisons. (Two more-recent books have further developed this: Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison-Industrial Complex, edited by Eric Stanley and Nat Smith; and Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics and the Limits of Law, by Dean Spade, founder of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project).

Recognizing the intersection between these two issues is crucial to moving both struggles forward. Queer (In)Justice is not only an educational text, but a call to arms. As the authors state in the introduction: “Ultimately, regardless of our intentions, all of us are accountable for the roles we play in reinforcing or dismantling the violence endemic to policing and punishment systems. This book is an invitation—not only to LGBT people but to all people concerned about social and economic justice—to accept that responsibility.”



Victoria Law is a writer, photographer, and mother. She is the author of Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles Of Incarcerated Women (PM Press, 2012) and co-editor of Don’t Leave Your Friends Behind: Concrete Ways to Support Families in Social Justice Movements and Communities (PM Press, 2012).
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:23 pm

Why is AD still allowed to carry on like this? To dump on every thread? Why is this Discussion Board no longer moderated?

(Maybe even asking is now a bannable offence. But how could anyone possibly know?)
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:32 pm

I don't have to agree with everything she says, and I don't. Magdalen Burns is a fabulous thinker and speaker. Very addictive for the style. I might not listen otherwise, but for the breath of fresh air as a rhetoritician and logician. She disagrees on given categories, everything else always flows elegantly from initial premises. Anyone who has a problem should take her as the damn stand-up talent she is and certainly no fomenter of hate or violence. She and others like her are entitled to the spaces for their discourse they demand. She does punch down, intellectually, but then so do I. Terrible fault. She should hurry up and do Trump while it can still potentially generate a million hits. Of course she's a damn physicist, this is what the good ones are like in person.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 167 guests