BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Unbelievably transphobic Guardian article

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:03 / 06.05.03
You know, there were periods during its coverage of the war in Iraw when I forgot that the Guardian, for all the lefty-loony-liberal claims made on its behalf by both fans and critics, is about as progressive and radical as Anne Widdecombe in a 'Free Nelson Mandela' tee. Good to have a piece come along that reminds you what this publication really stands for.

The title alone is cause to make you groan - I'm a girl - just call me 'he' - the byline is just as insulting, wilfully ignorant and misleading: 'Hip New York lesbians are calling themselves boys'. The worst passage is positioned near the beginning of the article, to set the tone:

The girlfriend certainly was hip. Not only was she sporting the vintage pizza delivery boy look that is fashionable at the moment among downtown lesbians, but she insisted on being referred to as "he", in spite of the fact that "he" resembled nothing so much as a cute, not even particularly androgynous, baby dyke.
I was just getting my head round referring to this 22-year-old girl as "he", when in came another girl with long blond hair stuffed up into a chimney-sweep cap, wearing a customised T-shirt that read, "Some fags fight back". My friend introduced me to the young woman and afterwards asked me if I'd noticed that "she" (although the woman in question refers to herself with the pronouns "hir" and "zie" as more nebulous versions of "his/her", "he" and "she") was packing, and that "her" breasts were bound? I hadn't noticed. I was looking at the TeaNY menu wondering how you could have macaroni cheese in a vegan cafe and then reasoning that if a girl can now be a boy and cheese can now be vegan, then maybe the chair I was sitting on was a teapot and the dog that Moby (a "bio boy") was patting was, in fact, an elephant.


Elsewhere, we are told that the "concept" of FTM transsexuals "seems a mad one", and that it is for those who "can't deal with the inequalities of being a "she"". References to a "trend", "hipsters", "an interesting new pastime", and other such sneering inferrals raise the tired old spectre of They're Only Doing It To Be Trendy.

The conclusion is theoretically a trans-positive one: After all, the idea of identity flux, of being able to be whoever you want, is an essential part of the times we are living in. - but is this not invalidated by all the condescension, dismissive belittling and refusal to accept even the basic rules of talking about trans people in a respectful way?
 
 
that
15:40 / 06.05.03
The horror. The horror.

Sorry. I don't think I have anything more constructive to say about it at this very moment.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:32 / 06.05.03
My initial badly thought-out reasoning...

It's hard to tell whether the writer is getting her genders mixed up with her sexuality or whether she in the first few paragraphs is meeting a load of 'women born, male presenting lesbians', but she doesn't do herself favours with sentences like I was looking at the TeaNY menu wondering how you could have macaroni cheese in a vegan cafe and then reasoning that if a girl can now be a boy and cheese can now be vegan, then maybe the chair I was sitting on was a teapot and the dog that Moby (a "bio boy") was patting was, in fact, an elephant. Because a woman not wanting to present as a woman is just as mad, do you see?!

Chances are that the transboy thing will end up in Britain... The question is, have the Americans gone too far this time?
Call the Queer Morality Police!
On the one hand, the "transboy" movement seems fantastically avant garde -
Phew, just so long as we're all glamorous and look like either Mel Gibson or Julia Roberts we'll be all right then.
- after all, why should it be possible to buy at least six different kinds of bagel in New York city and yet be limited to a mere two choices of gender? Maybe the trend is a way for women to get their own back on all those queenie gay boys who've been going round calling themselves "she" for years.
Yep, it's the fags fault. Next week- Why the Village People made it impossible to want to be a builder.
And certainly, being forced to refer to a woman as "he" as you are being served by "her" in a restaurant makes you reassess your whole approach to the concept of gender.
'Forced'? She makes it sound like these terrible fierce dykes gave her Chinese burns every time she got the gender wrong. If I call the writer a 'he' and she asks me to change it to her correct form of gender, can I sue her for the mental distress of having to taking her opinion into account?
 
 
gotham island fae
17:22 / 06.05.03
Yet the concept also seems a mad one. Surely the adoption of the male pronoun buys into all those ideas of male supremacy. If you can't deal with the inequalities of being a "she", does it help matters to turn yourself into a "he"? (italics mine)

The obvious issue to me is not overcoming inequality by latching onto supremacy but calling into question the simplistic duality of "she" and "he" as we have known them. As my fairly limited eyes see it, any genetic female attempting to identify as "he" is not "taking the easy road", as it seems the author is implying above. Rather, he is challenging the "forced" roles of "straight society" that, like so many other it's-either-this-or-that-with-no-inbetween mentalities, need to be challenged in order for evolution of societal ideas to occur.

By ending with a fluffy, well-I-guess-these-are-the-games-the-children-are-playing-these-days nod to transboys' right to "pass" as they wish to "pass" and exhibiting continual astonishment at the "load of rubbish" nature of the attempts, this author is doing a horrible disservice not only to those transboys specifically targeted, but also to any of the rest of us stuck in that "exotic bacon, lettuce and tomatoe sandwich" which is the [non-straight identifying] public/community.
 
 
Ganesh
19:17 / 06.05.03
Mmm. Although the term 'transboy' is used, it's rather unclear from the article whether the individuals concerned are motivated by transsexual, transvestite or 'drag king' drives - or all/none of the above. It seems a little premature, therefore, Flyboy, to decide she's referring squarely to "FTM transsexuals"...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
00:01 / 07.05.03
If you can't deal with the inequalities of being a "she", does it help matters to turn yourself into a "he"?

This seems to reflect the dominant reaction to eighteenth/nineteenth century feminism. That whole question of female behaviour governed ritualistically by men is suddenly brought to the forefront in the most patronising way. Emphasising the inequality of the female to make a reactionary point about the way we word our gender is very below the belt and it implies all the while that the sole purpose behind such word usage is to escape the lot you have been naturally given.

And yes it does bring across that nasty Carrie Bradshaw, ultra-conservative reaction to the questions that arise through gender. Yuk.
 
 
*
02:37 / 07.05.03
I just got done being grouchy at "Take Back The Night" on my campus, and now this. Excuse me while I go break something and/or myself.

Okay, I'm back. Don't be alarmed; I'm always breaking myself; it's my road to enlightenment. I just had to remind myself that surely transphobia will be dealt with, just as slowly and surely as racism and homophobia are slowly but surely being dealt with.

Whether she's referring to transsexuals, drag kings, daddies, or anyone else in that general realm of the gender conglomerate, the attitude is just unfair and immature. It's a reaction against something perceived as threatening by demeaning other people in order to uphold one's own feelings of superiority. It ought to be as threatening as a child sticking tai tongue out and shouting "sissy/tom boy, I'm better than you!" and running away. So why do I feel threatened?

I identify as an androgyne, by the way, in case anyone feels that's relevant to deciding how to take this response.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
05:14 / 07.05.03
You know, this article sucks the biggest ass of all time, but it's not as bad as Sheila Jeffreys' latest book, in which she argues that she can't makea properpolitical analysis of transsexuality without referring to the transpeople she cites as the genders they are not.
 
 
grant
15:00 / 07.05.03
Say *what*?

The Guardian article aside -- I'm more with Ganesh in feeling there's some difference between drag kings and genuine transgenderism that is off the map as far as the Guardian's concerned, to the article's deficit -- a theorist in the field is actually saying she can't discuss transgenderism in anything other than binary terms?

I mean, what?
 
 
Salamander
17:21 / 07.05.03
oh christ almighty, I can't believe I just read that article, (pinches self ouch!!, yes awake and sober), thats got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've recently read. I hope there aren't too many people mistaking this article for a brand of truth.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
17:41 / 07.05.03
Entitything - what's a "daddy"?
 
 
bjacques
22:51 / 07.05.03
Haw! Maybe Stephanie Theobald's just a vanilla lesbian. I read her novel Biche, about scrounging a living in Paris and having an affair with an older British woman. It was a diverting enough read, but in her photo on the back cover, she looks like she sucked a lemon. I've a friend, a male->female transsexual, gothic, who only likes women, so gender preference doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sexual preference. Actually, ever since I saw a documentary about Germaine Greer being against considering male-female transsexuals as women, I've been cheering anyone who bends gender back and forth until it breaks. And gays making mainstream gays uncomfortable are all right in my book. Log Cabin Republicans my ass. Punk rock! Signs of life in the USA!

Maybe Stephanie Theobald's beef has more to do with language snobbery, with Americans once again abusing the Queen's English. If so, I hear the Academie Francaise are hiring.
 
 
Marian
12:04 / 08.05.03
I'm a bit surprised everyone found the tone of this piece to be so negative. Britain's leading left-leaning broadsheet covers a peculiar topic of little wide-interest with a certain lack of sincere empathy, tries rather hard to communicate the reasons given to it by the people whose unusual behaviour inspired the topic, and then nudges its readers not to take the issue too seriously, or get offended by its implications for their own notions of gender. I'm just imagining what the Telegraph might have done with the same material, and it's not a pretty imagine. Spade says he uses the pronouns and signifiers he does because -

'using these words helps to disrupt that process a little and open a space for me to be something more complicated than that'

and this article strikes me as a good example of the kind of disruption he hopes to achieve. With regard to the tone of the article being 'transphobic' - are 'Guardianistas' {c.RLittlejohn} scared by Trans ideas, or do they just find them rather irrelevant? What level of, er, 'seriousness of consideration' would be appropriate for a newspaper to cover this issue with?
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
12:46 / 08.05.03
T.O.D.D.: this may help:

Daddy (see also: Boy): A dyke who expresses a dominant, masculine, nurturing aspect toward her sexual partner. Does not necessarily incorporate connotations of incest.

That's how I'd understood it, anyway. Anyone got any variant defs?
 
 
grant
13:37 / 08.05.03
Marian: I even think it's possible to read the Guardian article as doing that one better -- since the tone is vaguely hostile at the outset and fades into a kind of bemused acceptance by the end (with a few nuggets of genuine interest along the way), it'd be possible to read it as propaganda, even. Aimed at gradually seducing a potentially transphobic audience.

But that sort of thing always cuts two ways, and besides, the likelihood of it being a literal, conscious choice seems a bit remote. Might have happened in that writer-brain, preconscious space, might not have.
 
 
C.Elseware
15:27 / 08.05.03
I have a couple of friends who have/are undergoing, dammit, can't remember politically correct word, taking hormones 'n' having surgery to change gender.

I make an effort to use their prefered pronoun when refering them to get myself and other people used to the idea. What you say changes the world. It's a matter of respect really, not being PC.

If I don't respect the person then I don't really care what they're called.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:29 / 08.05.03
Marian - if it helps, here's what Dean Spade himself has to say about the article on his site, the excellent MakeZine:

just in case you forgot what really exploitative sensationalist transphobic journalism looks like, check out this article featuring me and some good friends, all of us duped into giving info toward a really fucked up disrespectful article about how we're the latest "trend" for lesbians. just in case you need the reminder, if increased gender self-determiniation is a trend, i really hope it catches on so people can stop dying of being trans and gender variant. also, call people what they fucking want to be called!!! for fuck's sake! (please write angry letters to these folks, of course)
 
 
Marian
13:25 / 09.05.03
Well I think he should probably take a few deep breaths. I'd expect that kind of response from a Daily Mailreader who'd just been told their wax-jackets were crap ('lots of angry letters'). The tone of his response suggests to me that, from a neuro-linguistic programming point-of-view, his adoption of Trans codes isn't having the kind of liberatory effect upon his psyche that we might have all hoped. Whatever words he uses to describe himself, he still uses rather inconsiderate terms to describe people who don't think that his ideas require the stoppage of all presses. People should I think try to laugh at their own eccentricities sometimes.

Perhaps part of the attraction of Trans philosophies is that they serve to entrench oneself firmly in the 'Other' camp, holy grail of post-modernism, which is nice for feelings of localised community but also means the group is being defined very significantly by its opposition towards what it perceives as the norm. Discourse with those from the other camp gets difficult, because the first thing you do to protect your ideas is start shouting, and previously sympathetic ears can turn away. By responding like that Dean makes it look like his own notions of who he is are still less important to him than everyone else's. He should have just laughed it off, and revelled in his own polymorphousness.

Trans/GV folk probably aren't dying in any greater numbers for their feelings than common or garden gays and lesbians (please correct me with stats if you think that's not so), so why does he deserve special consideration? Nobody's under obligation to give his ideas any greater credence than they would someone else's. Obviously it's difficult for me to empathise utterly, but I am trying. I read that article again but it just doesn't seem that disrespectful (disrespect can be so healthy), and Deano's response sounds a bit pissy in comparison.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:35 / 09.05.03
Sorry, I'm a bit simple. Marian, could you explain in more detail what you mean by "Neurolinguistic Programming" in your post, and also the importance of the Other as the holy grail of postmodernism? We never really did those in sixth-form college...
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
13:58 / 09.05.03
I dunno, Marian, I'd guess that for Dean et al this is a bit more than an 'eccentricity'; and when you say

Whatever words he uses to describe himself, he still uses rather inconsiderate terms to describe people who don't think that his ideas require the stoppage of all presses

I'd answer that the terms used in the original article were pretty inconsiderate.

Now that I've actually read it, I must say it strikes me that the author doesn't seem happy with ideas of mutable gender and sexuality at all - there's that bit, for example, when she goes on about lesbians at London parties who 'decide they're suddenly straight or decide to have babies' or whatever she says. So for all her railing at old-skool feminist lesbians who disapprove of people crossing gender boundaries, I'd argue that she's still pretty tied into a binary political view of gender, which is one reason why she's so incomprehending about trans people.
 
 
Marian
14:27 / 09.05.03
NLP in this case is just the words you use to order your thought processes. That's clearly of central importance to this issue: Dean doesn't like having to use the model of 'woman' to define his personality with so he calls himself 'he'. As St.Elsewhere says above 'What you say changes the world'.

The importance of 'Otherness' to postmodernism is there too, PM having arisen in the west as a means of bracketing cultural processes of non-western origin after WW2 when such things really couldn't any longer be succesfully ignored or dominated . PM is concerned with the subversion of grand narratives, with questioning the smoothness of accepted history and identifying very closely with 'Other' modes of discourse and expression, ones outside of canonical white/male/western philosophies. Yes that boils down to bullshit dualism, but that's why no-one digs postmodernism any more. The 'Otherness' is of course a myth, but a helpful one for the time. The 'holy grail' bit was just hyperbole, sorry if it offended, though I think you're being disingenuous yourself with the 'I'm a bit simple' admission. I've noticed some of your posts and clearly erudition is quite important to you, with faux naivete your favourite rhetorical device. Please slag my argument for what it's got, not for the twists of grammar lurking at its edges.

Let me rephrase: Was everyone here impressed with Dean's response to the Guardian article? Or did it sound kind of immature and hysterical to you?
 
 
Marian
14:41 / 09.05.03
KKC, that's a good point. Perhaps the word 'eccentricity' is a bit callous when talking about what might be the cornerstone of someone's identity. The notion of adopting a Trans identity strikes me as being so courageous and massive that I suppose I was a bit surprised to find that Dean responds just like any old arse when his ideological toes have been trampled on a bit. (And yes, I'll concede that the toe trampler was a bit of a toyota yarris too, but she's just a journalist. It's not like the Guardian is a sociology periodical or anything. Their 'You can't bullshit me sonny jim' attitude, critical though not proscriptive, is one of the reasons I read the paper sometimes, that and gorgeous George Monbiot.)
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:56 / 09.05.03
Hmmm. I think when you risk at the very least verbal abuse and at worst physical assault and arrest (scroll down to Feb 5 entry) every time you use a public bathroom, maybe you have a reason to not "just laugh things off" without being called "hysterical".

I dunno, I really object to the characterisation you're presenting here, you seem to have internalised the standard anti-activist rhetoric a little too much. "Why don't these people just calm down and speak a little more softly and moderately", etc? If you can accept that the use of the phrase "eccentricities" was callous (I'd call it grossly offensive and belittling, but callous will do), I fail to see why you can't understand a lot of people's reaction to that article.
 
 
Marian
15:32 / 09.05.03
I can understand why someone might be offended by the article, I just don't think it's very cool of them to let it happen. To someone unfamiliar with Trans issues, that's not an offensive article, it's just a bit of personal-P.O.V journalism about an unusual thing some people do. People who've never dreamed of such bizarre notions will read the article, and unless they're evil! probably will not react with fear or hatred to its ideas. Dean should try to figure who his real enemies are. (If the guy can't piss in public without getting arrested maybe he's his own worst enemy.) I will read his site over the weekend, and then try to be more eloquent on Monday. Enjoy your days off.
 
 
*
16:49 / 09.05.03
I understand that "To someone unfamiliar with Trans issues, that's not an offensive article, it's just a bit of personal-P.O.V journalism about an unusual thing some people do." (Marian) But that's just the sort of attitude which some people are working against. To many transfolk this is not a thing they do, it's a painful birth defect. It's bad enough to be laughed at for a birth defect; it's worse to be laughed at for trying to correct it.

My friend was nearly arrested for using a public bathroom. She was not engaging in "bizarre behavior" or being her "own worst enemy", she was just faced with a catch-22 variety of choice: When you have a penis but present as female, and are in public and need to use the restroom, do you risk getting beaten up or raped in the men's room or screamed at and arrested in the women's room? She passed well; no one complained when she was in the restroom, but apparently one of the waitstaff "suspected" and demanded that the cop check her i.d. He was eventually reprimanded, because he didn't follow procedure (no, I don't know what procedure is).

My point is this is not a game. This is not a fashion statement. Presenting it as a game or a fashion statement is harmful to people who have to live their lives like this. My friend has been the victim of sexual violence because of her transness. You say that you don't think transpeople are assaulted in any greater numbers than gays and lesbians; perhaps you should bear in mind that there are fewer transpeople and they are less willing to speak out.

I've done some work in NLP. Please further explain to me, Marian, how the NLP model would describe Dean's situation and that of other transpeople.

Also, bear in mind that research in Europe has indicated a brain structure influence on transgenderism in a significant number of cases; link when I find it. If transgenderism is in fact inborn and not a choice, how does that affect your view of the Guardian article and Dean's response?
 
 
*
17:05 / 09.05.03
Some abstracts:

one here

another here

excerpt from an article here

longer, more detailed summary here

There's more, but this seems to be short, scholarly, and a good start.
 
 
Ganesh
18:26 / 09.05.03
That's all true, Entitything, but again, it's by no means clear that those to whom the article refers are 'transfolk' in the specifically "painful birth defect" (ie. transsexual) sense. This may be because the writer herself is imprecise (and, as has been pointed out, doesn't seem terribly interested in sharpening her focus) and it may reflect possible heterogeneity within the 'transboy' group. In any case, the author's vagueness means her comments cannot be assumed to be directed specifically at transsexual people.

(I'm reasonably well up present research in this area. The neuroanatomical studies are interesting but sample sizes too small to provide conclusive results. Birth order studies, however, suggest transsexualism (in common, perhaps rather counterintuitively, with aspects of sexual orientation) is influenced by subtle shifts in prenatal androgen levels.)
 
 
*
01:56 / 11.05.03
Even if the people she spoke with were not strictly speaking transsexual, the author tacitly assumes that all transpeople are making some sort of fashion statement, rather than expressing a fundamental part of their identity. Her very vagueness is part of the issue here. People who don't know any better reading her article might very well generalize that all people with gender issues are just being trendy, regardless of the specific form of those issues.

And even if a specific person is not born transsexual, I see no reason te should be belittled for a choice to present as a different gender, or no gender at all. I recognize that some people are going to think this is "weird", and they're free to think that. I recognize that people who are born transsexual may feel offended by others making the choice to transition when it is something which is more or less forced upon them, and I respect their feelings. This still doesn't make it a good idea to belittle a group of people. Even if it is a choice, it's their choice and it needs to be respected.

I know the neuroanatomical studies are limited and further work are needed. As preliminary reports they are very interesting, however. Prenatal androgen levels may have something to do with brain structure and development, which is an angle I'd like to see explored more thoroughly. Cheers to you and the work you do, Ganesh.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
06:10 / 12.05.03
"That's all true, Entitything, but again, it's by no means clear that those to whom the article refers are 'transfolk' in the specifically "painful birth defect" (ie. transsexual) sense. This may be because the writer herself is imprecise (and, as has been pointed out, doesn't seem terribly interested in sharpening her focus) and it may reflect possible heterogeneity within the 'transboy' group. In any case, the author's vagueness means her comments cannot be assumed to be directed specifically at transsexual people."

I'm not sure what your point is, Ganesh. No-one claimed her comments were directed specifically at transsexual people. Does it matter?

And this: "Dean should try to figure who his real enemies are. (If the guy can't piss in public without getting arrested maybe he's his own worst enemy.)"

Dean knows who his 'real' enemies are: people just like you.
 
 
Ganesh
07:33 / 12.05.03
Disco: Flyboy specified "FTM transsexuals" in his first post, and Entitything made reference to a "painful birth defect" requiring to be corrected. Both made these points, I think, to counter the author's broad implication that the 'transboy' phenomenon is motivation by fashion and therefore somehow trivial, lightweight.

The point I was trying to make is that the author doesn't appear to be targetting "FTM transsexuals"; she doesn't appear to know who she's ridiculing, and paints with unduly broad strokes. The 'transboy' group is very likely heterogeneous and, statistically speaking, some probably are 'just being trendy' - or, perhaps more accurately, being playful with regard to their gender and sexual personae, in a drag king kind of way.

I'm not attempting to defend this article, which strikes me as shoddy, unfocussed, tactless journalism. It strikes me less as a specific attack on "FTM transsexuals", however, and more of a rather silly, dumbed down 'aren't those people over there weird' generalisation about a mixed group which the author has failed to accurately describe, let alone define.

'Sex and the City' is a pretty apt comparison, really.
 
 
Ganesh
08:00 / 12.05.03
Oh yeah, and in a sense you're correct: it doesn't matter whether the author's making sneery generalisations about transpeople specifically, or transvestites or drag kings; as Entitything says, it's wrong to belittle any group of people on such grounds. On the other hand, those of us with a genuine interest in examining what motivates the 'transboys' are perhaps likely to become irritated with the article for slightly different reasons - not so much because it's an offensive, bigoted attack (although it definitely includes strong elements of casual bigotry) but also because it represents a wasted opportunity to shed some light upon a potentially fascinating cultural phenomenon.

I suppose I'm approaching this not as a direct participant but a curious onlooker. I'm interested in the whats, whos and whys of the 'transboy' movement (if it can be considered a movement) and would've welcomed an informative, incisive article on their social/psychological make-up; I want to know how many are driven by X and how many by Y. I guess the article's shallowness disappoints more than it angers me.
 
 
diz
02:24 / 13.05.03
i have mixed feelings here.

obviously, the article is less than what one would hope for, to say the least, both in terms of tone and content. there is plenty of room for anger, and disappointment, and whatever.

however, though outrage is justifiable, it may be neither wise nor productive. transgender issues are complicated and confusing territory for a lot of people, and, quite frankly, it takes a lot of work in terms of time and research and such to get to a high level of awareness and sensitivity on those issues if you don't already have firsthand knowledge from personal experience. people aren't born with degrees in GLBT studies, and, until they get there, they're going to say stupid things.

it may be worth noting that the article, while annoyingly condescending and appallingly superficial, is not actively hostile. no one's saying that transfolk are abominations against God who should be burned at the stake. though i'm not normally one for making too much of authorial intent, it may be better strategically for those of us who want to see better coverage in the future to avoid open hostility towards someone who, in their own mind, is probably trying to be helpful.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
08:12 / 13.05.03
Well, being one of those pesky indeterminate trannyboys who were the precise target of the article's misinformation, ridicule and condescension, I'm all for open hostility. Being nice to transphobic people, while it gives you a nice public profile, is simply not honest.

And Ganesh,while we're on the subject of why X and why Y, I'm interested to know what you thought of a BBC doco I saw last week, called 'The Boy Who was Made Into A Girl', about John Money and John/Joan. Seen it?
 
 
Jackie Susann
00:49 / 14.05.03
I find it very disappointing how many people on this thread seem to be saying that transfolk should be grateful when journalists merely make fun of them, rather than actively attacking them. And/or the classic 'transfolk don't get killed or beaten any more often than other queers so why don't they stop complaining'.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:34 / 14.05.03
I don't think it's that many people....Marian and Kittenz?

Gotta be said, though, that if you assume that it takes a lot of work in terms of time and research and such to get to a high level of awareness and sensitivity on those issues if you don't already have firsthand knowledge from personal experience, it might nonetheless be fair to say that if you're planning on bowling in an article to a national newspaper on it, it might be wise to do at least some of that work first, or failing that to suggest somebody with a bit more experience writes it instead. Rather than this breezy "hey, lesbians calling themselves 'he'. It's ker-razy! But then, ain't this a ker-azy world?" approach. Just a thought.

What I do find interesting about the article is the inherent supposition that genderfuck is becoming as common as chips (at least among middle-class lesbians, insofar as the label "lesbian" remains viable in this context, which is to say not very far at all), and that next thing you know, Britain will be awash with genderfuckers. Can't wait personally, but how does the panel feel about this? Did she in fact desperately scrape up every friend of a friend with gender ambiguity and then go "Well, I was *shocked* at the spread of this new craze" (ahem), or are we looking at the coming wave?
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply