Dear Transsexuals | MensRights

[deleted] · 2011-08-22T02:57:50+00:00

I would love to listen to you talk about your perspectives on men's rights and why you are subscribers here. (And of course, by...

[–]Ma99ie 34 points35 points36 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Experience as a guy: no one looks at you. Men are invisible, until you start talking about your credentials, in what women call a "safe place." You are also free to just be. You can walk around at midnight, and no one will think it strange. You can pee anywhere. Guys are pretty straight with each other. You fuck women, and then don't want to call the next day.

Experience as a girl: everybody notices you, and almost everybody is really nice to you. At night, you are always watching to make sure no one attacks you (which has happened to me on several occassions). People buy you drinks, and if you are depressed or lonely, I have sex with strangers...and get more depressed. Once a guy fucks you, he's not interested in you anymore. You wait for a call, but it doesn't come. There is a lot of girl politics to interactions with women, especially if a man is involved.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fondueguy 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]2StandardDeviations 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ma99ie 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 14 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]rosconotorigina 24 points25 points26 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 14 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would agree with that. But at the same time, I think feminism (much of its activism and influence on social policy) has done nothing more than to reinforce the most negative of those expectations, prejudices and limitations on men and minimizing or negating the positive ones, while doing the opposite for women.

Much of feminist discourse revolves around "toxic masculinity"--violence, aggression, sexual domination--reinforcing these traits as inherently male and applying them with a broad brush. At the same time, many positive "masculine" traits, such as honor and creativity, are downplayed--"deadbeat dads" and "girls are better than boys at this that and the other thing."

It ungenders men when they do good things--"3 firefighters (not men) died attempting to rescue..." or "A retired teacher pulled an injured motorist from a burning car..." then genders them when they do bad things, "A man raped...", or "a gunman opened fire..." or whatever.

Then we look at how feminism would portray women. It's always the glass ceiling, never that a particular woman, or many women, either can't cut it, or are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices to climb the greasy pole. Again, men are the wrongdoers here.

Feminism fights for alimony rights and for child support, while simultaneously seeming altogether apathetic toward a father's emotional and social contribution to his children's well-being. If a man doesn't see his kids, he's a deadbeat who's abandoned them. If a woman messes with his access, she's protecting her children. If a man wants shared custody, he's likely an abuser seeking to maintain control over his victims. Women are independent, and have blanket rights to their children, but men must be made to shoulder the cost and responsibility for supporting these independent women (who NEED alimony) and children they have no rights to.

Feminism misses no opportunity to beatify women and vilify men.

The very statement "Rape accusers should always be believed", indicates that women just don't lie, ever, and again, that it should be easy to believe any man could rape. VAWA's gender profiling casts men as abusers due to their maleness, and women as never abusers due to their femaleness, and feminist theory not only constructed that legislation, but feminists were adamantly defending it just a month ago.

So feminism may be willing to change those expectations, prejudices and limitations, but they have a very specific agenda in doing so. It doesn't want to eliminate them, it seems to want to rewrite them, so that they will benefit women and harm men.

Me? I'm a masculine woman, bisexual, a little genderqueer. But I'm not a feminist, because feminism seems to be about forcing a role on me, rather than letting me choose my own. Feminism seems okay allowing me to be masculine, and allowing me to be nurturing and caretaking with my children, but not in allowing me to be nurturing and caretaking with my man. It tells me my sex life is deeply wrong, in that I prefer a submissive role when I'm with a man. Feminism believes it is a problem that I don't earn as much as a man, even though I work exactly as much as I have to and no more than that, because of my own desire for a decent work/life balance. Feminism would cast me as a victim just because I'm a woman, when I won't see myself that way.

So no. IMO, feminism isn't so much about deconstructing gender norms, but about reconstructing them in a way that will benefit women to the detriment of men.

[–]rosconotorigina 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]rosconotorigina 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

No, I really can't agree with a group who thinks it's appropriate to ruin someone's life because two drunk people had sex and one of them had male genitalia while the other regretted it.

I can't really agree with a group who believe that transgender women are nothing more than sick, abusive men who are trying to appropriate women's experiences and even women's bodies! And there is a branch of feminism that believes exactly that.

But that doesn't stop me from being a feminist. Why? Because I can clearly see that feminism isn't one thing - it is many different things. There are plenty of feminists who believe that transphobic bullcrap. There are also plenty of feminists who not only respect me, but even appreciate me.

I'm guessing that you've come across a particularly vile misandric flavour of feminism. That isn't the only flavour of feminism.

Seriously, I've been around the block.

Me too...

[–]kloo2yoo 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Um...yes? You choose to associate yourself with a movement that has some ugly, ugly members with ugly, ugly ideas that get ugly, ugly things done.

I'm going to use an extreme example: I'm a Stalinist. I'm a Stalinist because I believe Stalin's stated goal of bringing the Soviet Union into the 20th Century, of modernizing the country and catching it up with the rest of the world, was a good goal. OMG! What do you mean you think I support genocide? And engineered famine? And purges? And sending people to gulags? I get to define what Stalinism means to ME! You think I would support those aspects of Stalinism? But I'm still a Stalinist because I believe in many of the things Stalin tried to do.

Feminism starts with "fem". That means that, bad or good, it will be about advocating for women's interests, even when those interests clash with the interests of other stakeholders in society, even when those interests do active social and economic damage to individuals and communities.

I have a question. Why would you insist on calling yourself a feminist if the issues you have in common with (some) feminism are issues you also have in common with other groups that don't have such a bad rep and get so much bad shit accomplished--like egalitarianism? What is it in the title itself that seems necessary to your belief system?

[–]throwawaydirl -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Um...yes? You choose to associate yourself with a movement that has some ugly, ugly members with ugly, ugly ideas that get ugly, ugly things done.

Well, if that is what you think of me, then I think we're done.

I'm going to use an extreme example: I'm a Stalinist.

Stalin was one person. Feminism isn't one thing.

That means that, bad or good, it will be about advocating for women's interests

That is how it started. The U.S. started with the idea that "all men are created equal" - should women take offense at that?

like egalitarianism?

Umm - the difference between my beliefs and egalitarianism being... ?

Of course, I have a pretty good idea what your answer is going to be. You see the word "feminism", and you project a whole lot of bullcrap on to it - you even believe that as a result of my belief in feminism, I hate transgender people! That says far far more about you than about me.

What is it in the title itself that seems necessary to your belief system?

What is it in the title itself that causes such hostility in you?

[–]zyk0s 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I was using an extreme example for illustration purposes. Leave it to you to not address any of the actual points I made. I'm sure, for instance, that I could find some admirable (stated) beliefs within Nazism, but I think the whole Nazi angle's been played out.

Feminism may not be one thing. But the most effective arms of feminism, those that get the most shit done, are the radicals, and the radicals are pretty much one thing.

How feminism started was out of a desire for equal rights for women. Some women were actually leery of this, because they believed it would force equal responsibility on women, such as conscription. Over time, feminism has evolved from being about equal rights/treatment under the law, to superior rights/treatment under the law. That is, bring women up in areas where they lack status in society, but keep the privilege that women had--exemption from the draft, extra social supports based on their gender, lowered expectations in the workplace, etc. Feminism has been co-opted by women's interests rather than women's rights. The problem is that feminism has excluded other stakeholders--men and children--and their interests from the discussion. Feminism is about what's best for women, even if it is not what's best, or is actively harmful, for men or children.

The difference between your beliefs and egalitarianism? I don't know, you'd have to tell me. If your beliefs are 100% in line with egalitarianism, and run counter to a large percentage of feminists, why call yourself a feminist rather than an egalitarian? I do not believe that your definition of feminism is one that hates transgender people, but many other feminists' definition of feminism is. If you are 100% egalitarian and vehemently oppose some of the loudest 10% of feminists, and disagree with another 20% or so of the more active ones, then why call yourself feminist?

It is not that I think you believe as they do. It is that, by calling yourself the same thing they call themselves, you are lending your own credibility to their looniness. When a feminist speaks as a feminist in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the renewal of VAWA, the head of the committee is not going to personally interview ever single self-identified feminist to see if they all agree. They just think, "Wow, 10 million feminists can't be wrong!" even if, in reality, only half a million actual feminists would back up those feminist experts.

This is the danger of the label. You are associating yourself with feminism, when you have no control over what is done in the name of feminism, or how non-feminists view feminism. If you call yourself a marxist, people are going to believe certain things about your worldview, whether you believe those things or not. They are going to believe you support other marxists, whether you do or not.

What is it in the title that causes such hostility in me? A lot, actually. Feminism is responsible for a lot of social change that, while it has probably benefitted my daughter in some ways, has been extremely damaging to my sons, and will actively work against them as adults. My daughter, as an honor student, will be eligible for a fuck-ton of financial assistance with university that my son, who has higher grades than she does, will not. She will be more likely to attend university, because someone else will be happy to foot most of the bill for her. She will have more choice in her work/life balance as a woman. She will have legal protection and social supports if she is ever assaulted or abused. She will have protection from harassment in the workplace. She will have parental rights that will be respected by the courts. She will have a multitude of things her brother will not, mostly because of feminism's focus on women's interests rather than women's equality.

Moreover, as a woman, I find that much of feminist discourse and activism is focused on the victimhood of women--patriarchal oppression, the glass ceiling, rape, domestic violence, etc, who need extra social, financial and legal supports if they are to even get by, who need entire ministries devoted to whether they are doing okay or not, and that this works at cross-purposes in the minds of the public, countering the other things feminism wishes us to believe about women--that they are capable, strong, independent, empowered, responsible and accountable. Those positive qualities are what would make me vote for a woman prime minister, but those qualities are mere lip-service compared with the other side of the feminine coin feminism wants us to see, which is one of weakness and dependence and victimhood.

In other words, I believe much of what has been enacted and accomplished in feminism's name is not just harmful to men and children, but harmful to women. We're being held back by our own devotion to idea of oppression, when if we just got on with it, put our backs to it, we could get some serious shit done.

[–]throwawaydirl1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think your key question / point is this -

If your beliefs are 100% in line with egalitarianism, and run counter to a large percentage of feminists, why call yourself a feminist rather than an egalitarian? I do not believe that your definition of feminism is one that hates transgender people, but many other feminists' definition of feminism is. If you are 100% egalitarian and vehemently oppose some of the loudest 10% of feminists, and disagree with another 20% or so of the more active ones, then why call yourself feminist?

I'm a misfit. I'm a transgender woman, and most people have no clue what that means. I'm seen as a fetishist, a freak, an evil man, an amazing sex object, amongst many many other things. What I actually am, however, is just a plain ordinary honest tax-paying contributing loving woman, with a rare medical condition. So since I have to vehemently defend my existence against the mythology that surrounds me anyway, I might as well do the same with my sexual politics.

Yes I'm going to be associated, in some people's minds, with extremists. Well, when it comes to me as a trans woman, "extremist" is the least of the things I have to be worried about being associated with.

I'm someone who has had to get used to saying "I'm X" and watch people immediately making a ton of ridiculous assumptions about me. I actually (most of the time) kinda like being in the position where my existence, coupled with my personality, challenge prejudices.

I don't know if that explains it.

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I suppose it sort of does. But again, a lot of feminism thinks of you as a "frankenstein", as Mary Daly put it, or as an active threat if you were to be allowed to use the women's bathroom. I remember one feminist who wrote a screed about transwomen that said, "Who knows what they are doing with children when others aren't watching?"

So a lot of that mythology you're trying to dispel is being perpetuated by feminists themselves. Even when you look at gender feminism--those who feel all gender is a social construct and that males and females start out exactly the same...that brand of feminism can't co-exist with any acceptance that gender is not a choice, that it has biological underpinnings. If one were to believe what they have to say about gender, then the kindest, most humane thing to do with transpeople and even homosexuals, would be to try to socially condition it out of them, rehabilitate them. And this...this just strikes me as, well, incompatible with reality.

What is it about feminism that speaks to you specifically, that could not be spoken to outside of feminism? I mean, I can see a shift in society's view of feminism happening at the moment, evidenced by a greater awareness of men's rights and of some of the damage feminism has done in the name of helping and protecting women. Ordinary people, equality-minded people, are starting to get impatient and critical and roll their eyes at a lot of stuff feminists do.

I mean, I think everyone was kind of shocked, given my record on reddit of being critical of feminism, when I gave my opinion on Summer's Eve's ad campaign (on their existence, really), and criticized society for making women ashamed of their genitals, of thinking of them as dirty and in need of "decontamination" just to be bearable and normal. That companies like SE do extreme harm, not just to women's view of themselves, but to women's physical and reproductive health, playing up their insecurities to get them to pay for products that increase reproductive infections and can damage fertility. I mean, it's not as if I don't have some views in common with feminists. It's just that I won't be associated with a group that gets so much horrible shit accomplished.

Like I said, if I call myself feminist, I throw my vote in with the defenders of VAWA, whether I like it or not. I've given an impression of unity of purpose with them. And I won't do that. Not when men and children would be harmed by it. Not when women themselves, as a group, are arguably harmed by it.

So I guess what you said sort of explains it, but not exactly all the way, or to the degree where I would understand. For me, it wouldn't be so much about defending myself from being personally seen as "one of those man-haters" by other individuals I meet, but about not unwittingly adding my voice and support to those who would do harm to others.

[–]throwawaydirl1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You answered this -

but about not unwittingly adding my voice and support to those who would do harm to others.

with this -

Who knows what they (trans people) are doing with children when others aren't watching?

There are people who assume that because I'm trans, I do stuff to children. There are others that assume that because I'm feminist, I'm about adding my voice that do harm to others.

What is it about feminism that speaks to you specifically, that could not be spoken to outside of feminism?

It would have to be the message don't assume that I'm about doing harm to children or to women because of some fscked up notion you have about what I mean when I say that I am transgender or I am feminist.

I guess, for me, being feminist speaks to my need to scream to the world to not judge a book by it's covers. Treat me as an individual. Get to know me as an individual.

[–]girlwriteswhat1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sigh. You're not getting my point.

I'm sure there is one or two transsexual people out there who harm others--whether children or adults. But being transsexual is 1) not a choice, and 2) not a reflection of belief, ideology, morality, or character. It's simply a biological condition.

It is therefore illogical and unfair to discriminate against transpeople, just as it is to discriminate against women. In fact, it's illogical to really even treat transpeople as alike in any way, other than their biological condition and the difficulties they face in society because of prejudice. There are Muslim, Atheist and Christian transpeople, fiscally conservative transpeople, homophobic transpeople, asshole transpeople, immoral transpeople, oversexed transpeople, undersexed transpeople, criminal transpeople, fine, upstanding, taxpaying transpeople, etc.

And while one could say that there are Muslim, Aitheist and Christian feminists, etc etc...well, feminism centers around a certain ideology of patriarchy theory, patterns of patriarchal oppression, and so on. That is, feminism subscribes to a worldview--a way of looking at how the world worked before feminism, and a way of looking at how the world should work.

Transsexualism is an involuntary biological state. Feminism is a way of thinking. And while I cannot logically or morally discriminate against or criticize someone for something as involuntary as their biology, I absolutely CAN discriminate against or criticize ways of thinking.

As a transsexual, you do no harm to children because of your biological condition. This is why it is completely right and just to say that, even if one or two transsexuals have harmed children, "Not All Transpeople Are Like That, and this is why I support trans rights in society." Just like it is entirely right and just to say, "Not All Women Are Like That, and this is why I support women's rights in society."

But as feminists, MANY feminists harm others because of their feminism. In fact, the worldview and belief system that drives the most powerful and influential members of the feminist movement is a worldview and a belief system that thrives on pedestalizing women as a group and demonizing men as a group. Your support for the harm they do derives simply from you describing yourself as feminist and therefore projecting an impression of unity of purpose with them.

There is no way for a lawmaker or public policy maker to know that you, as an individual feminist, disagree with a specific change demanded by a feminist group or organization. As I said, because you call yourself the same thing they do, the unity of purpose is implicit. Your voice is added, with that of every other feminist, in support of what those people, speaking from their intellectual authority as feminists, wish to enact or change. That lawmaker or policy maker is not interested in getting to know every feminist as an individual. Even if he/she was, they wouldn't have the time to do so.

There is very little of what I would call "policing the movement" coming from within feminism itself. NOW and other groups get up to some seriously fucked up shit, with very little criticism directed their way from other feminists. That silence, combined with your entirely voluntary labeling of yourself as a feminist means that you, in effect, are supporting them in their efforts to, say, erode father's rights even more, or to block the establishment of domestic violence shelters for men, or whatever bigotry they're up to this week. While you may adamantly oppose them in these efforts, within the privacy of your own thoughts, or within the context of who you are as an individual speaking to other individuals, you are still, in a very practical sense, supporting them. Unless you are there in the room with them saying, "Wait an effing minute! I don't agree with these people! This is wrongheaded and harmful!" it is only NATURAL for lawmakers and policy makers to assume that the feminists in front of them who are speaking as feminists are also speaking for YOU.

And although, as you say, it is your luxury to define what feminism means to you, it is the most active, powerful and visible members of feminism that get to define what feminism means to the rest of the world. You can't revoke their membership (it's a self-applied label), and they hold the political reins of your movement. There is no way for you to kick them out. The only way to unequivocally dissociate yourself and your beliefs from them and their beliefs (and the harm they do) is by calling yourself something different.

I don't judge a book by its cover. But I feel I am entirely justified in judging a person or a movement not by what they say, but by what they do. The leaders of feminism do a lot of damage, and the moderate, equality minded feminists enable it by providing tacit support, a body under the banner, a vote that even if it isn't cast will still be counted.

[–]throwawaydirl1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NovemberTrees 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stingbox 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It isn't a load of bullcrap that's projected onto feminism, feminism has done a lot of bullcrap:

http://i.imgur.com/RnRAb.png

What feminism started as, it's no longer. The line of conversation has turned needlessly hostile (it wasn't said you've got ugly views and ambitions; /some/ members of feminism do), so I'll just chime in with this one thing: it might be a broad group, and a lot of people state they are feminists due to their belief in achieving equality, which is admirable- great things have been achieved in the past- but in the now, this makes it easier for extremists to co-opt the movement and do terrible things under the guise of equality (as the link shows). The really sad thing is, it already seems to have happened.

EDIT: I used a screenshot as I originally intended to use it as reference outside of reddit too, but if you want the links referred to in the post I still have those.

[–]throwawaydirl1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stingbox1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HolyCounsel 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whoooah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Why am I a subscriber? My experience as a guy taught me about the often unspoken injustices against men. Injustices are bad, unspoken injustices are intolerable.

However, I've only got one more bit of good news for you, then it's into the bad news. The other bit of good news is that you are right - there is a component of gender that is innate that goes beyond genitals, hormones etc.

Now the bad news. You are also wrong - there is a component of gender that is a complete social fabrication, and that is ridiculously unjust at times. That injustice swings both ways, true, but there is a certain pervasive quality to it as a female that makes it particularly difficult. I managed to avoid most of that injustice as a guy - I cannot avoid it as a female.

So it really is as bad as (not all!) feminists say. Really. The trick for both sides is to rise above the injustices, the anger, the pain and the fear and to see that, actually, you are on the same team. Just as most men love women, most women love men. Please try and remember that. I know it can be hard, sometimes impossible, when you are beaten down under a huge burden of injustice.

The other thing I want to write about is something I touched on in another thread, namely the emotional effects of hormones. I wouldn't describe myself as being more emotional now that I'm on estrogen, but my emotions are much more intense. When I cry, I don't cry - I bawl. It is particularly bad when my hormone levels are changing. It can be really really difficult to deal with.

I have been on anti-androgens (stuff which kills off testosterone) as well as estrogen. The anti-androgens are administered once a month, and the estrogen is continuous. Especially in the early days, when it was coming to the end of the month, I would be moody - I would be feeling down, and I'd have another feeling which I wouldn't quite describe as angry (I don't know how to describe it). Then I would get my anti-androgen. A few days later, when my testosterone was at a minimum and hence my relative levels of estrogen would be at a maximum, I'd be watching a leaf fall off a tree, and I'd burst into tears, as the falling leaf would remind me of a time that I was a kid and I fell and bruised my knee and my Dad took care of me, or something stupid like that. Then, I'd be back to normal.

I've heard a cis woman describe her monthly cycle in pretty much exactly the same way. When she says it's her hormones, it's her hormones. Really. Please, please be gentle. :) Of course, not all women have that experience - some women seem to be far more affected by their hormone level changes than others (I'm guessing that has something to do, at least in part, with how widely those changes swing).

[–]fondueguy -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

but there is a certain pervasive quality to it as a female that makes it particularly difficult. I managed to avoid most of that injustice as a guy - I cannot avoid it as a female.

I know. Women, just like poor people, die earlier, retire later, get less health care, get treated like atm's in family courts, are considered less valuable as parents, girls take divorce worse (because of patriarchy), and women commit suicide much more frequently.

Those (lifespan, retirement, healthcare, and family rights) are some of the biggest indicators of oppression vs. privilege.

Wait... That stuff actually happens to men and the poor.

I think the inequalities for men aren't as "pervasive" because the sexism towards men really is that pervasive! Men just aren't told to recognize their gender as overburden or victimized. That has been reserved for women to recognize and discuss.

[–]throwawaydirl 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Women, just like poor people, die earlier, retire later, get less health care, get treated like atm's in family courts, are considered less valuable as parents, girls take divorce worse (because of patriarchy), and women commit suicide much more frequently.

Men get taken less seriously, men's opinions count for less, men have to constantly be aware of their surroundings at night etc etc etc.

As I said, I avoided most of the injustices as a man. My earning power meant that I got good health care. The fact that I never married and never had children meant that I never had issues with parenting or family courts. Yes, it was a crap life, but the fact remains that I avoided most of the undeniable injustices that men face. I cannot avoid the injustices as a woman. I cannot avoid not being taken as seriously. I cannot avoid not having to be aware of my surroundings at night in a way that I never had to be aware of them as a guy.

Those (lifespan, retirement, healthcare, and family rights) are some of the biggest indicators of oppression vs. privilege.

Umm - I'll say it a third time, and then hopefully you'll accept what it is that I'm saying. There are undeniable injustices against men. But, for me at least, there is also a pervasive quality to the injustices against women that I did not experience as a guy.

Men just aren't told to recognize their gender as overburden or victimized.

OK - I'll say it a fourth time. You are victimised as a male.

As a woman, so am I. There is a different quality to that victimisation. Now, what do you want to do - get into a victimisation p1ssing contest with me, or see me as a potential ally who understands what victimisation means (and has personal experience of it from both sides of the gender divide)? Actually, as a trans woman, I'm more victimised that you can imagine. There! I win the p1ssing contest! Zip up your pants!

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I cannot avoid not being taken as seriously.

As a woman, I've never had that problem. I think a lot of women approach "being taken seriously" not very seriously, if you know what I mean. That is, MANY women play up the helpless/not-too-bright/I'm-just-a-girl thing in order to manipulate men to help them with their shit. Of course those men aren't going to see those women as someone to be taken seriously. I was always taken seriously at school (sometimes too seriously) and always have been at work. You set boundaries and maintain them (both your side of things and other people's), and people will take you seriously.

I cannot avoid not having to be aware of my surroundings at night in a way that I never had to be aware of them as a guy.

Or that one. I mean, yeah, I'm aware of my surroundings because I live and work in a rough neighborhood where people get mugged. But I'm no more aware of my surroundings, even at night walking to my car with an apron full of money, than anyone else.

Although I will grant you, as a transgendered woman, you definitely win any victimization pissing contest with me. I'm actually curious: How much of the extra awareness wrt your safety do you feel is due to your femaleness, and how much to your transgenderedness? Is it all one? Or too intertwined to separate? Because I'm sure you'd be very aware that as a trans person, you're in a uniquely vulnerable place when it comes to gendered violence...

Edit: How is it that when you transitioned from male to female, and therefore cut your risk of stranger violence in half or more, that you feel you must be more aware of your safety than when you were a man? Men are twice as likely to be assaulted, yet you had no fear. Women are half as likely to be assaulted, yet now you fear. Is it that you NEED to be more aware of your surroundings as a woman, or that you've had it impressed on you by society that you do?

[–]throwawaydirl 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I think a lot of women approach "being taken seriously" not very seriously, if you know what I mean. That is, MANY women play up the helpless/not-too-bright/I'm-just-a-girl thing in order to manipulate men to help them with their shit.

I won't contest that assertion. However, I was with my manager on a conference phone call recently. On the other side of the call were some clients, and I was introduced to them as "(female name) - our technical expert". The technical questions were directed at my manager, and not at me.

How much of the extra awareness wrt your safety do you feel is due to your femaleness, and how much to your transgenderedness?

I "pass" (present as female) quite well, so I'm not nearly as worried about being "read" (being spotted as a trans person) as I am worried about the usual things that people are worried about at night. So I'd have to say it has little to do with my trans status. And I definitely notice a difference in how safe I feel since I transitioned.

How is it that when you transitioned from male to female, and therefore cut your risk of stranger violence in half or more, that you feel you must be more aware of your safety than when you were a man?

That is such a good question, and it has a very simple answer. The reason why I am now more aware is because I am acutely aware that I've lost a lot of my physical strength. With that loss of strength comes a natural feeling of vulnerability.

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Haha, I think in some ways, men have the exact same experience, only in reverse. I mean, while at the hardware store the other day, the employees kept talking to my bf instead of me, and he kept having to say, "Yeah, I don't know anything about drywall. This is her project." One of the employees said to me, "Ahh, so you just bring him along to carry the heavy stuff?" I smiled, rubbed the bf's biceps, and said, "Actually, he's just for show."

On the other hand, when my ex and I went to discuss my daughter's IEP with her teachers when she was 4, every single question was addressed to me. He might as well not have even been there. It was assumed that I would make all the decisions wrt my kids. Likewise, whenever I've gone to a furniture store or home decor place, the service staff will always talk to me, the assumption being I make the decisions on paint color, fabric, carpets and furniture styles, and my bf has to make it happen and live with it.

This reflects not just societal expectations, but also people's personal experience. Mechanics expect that women won't know wtf about their cars not only because "women don't know for cars", but because very few women actually do--and they're almost always pleasantly surprised to find one who does. Same thing with me at the hardware store--I got a lot of respect from the (100% male) "expert" staff once they realized I knew what I was talking about with wiring, light fixture installation, drywall and finishing.

I have a couple more questions for you, though. Do you think that the women who do play up the "I'm just a girl" thing when it suits them poison the well for everyone else?

Also, do you think feminism has helped or hindered you wrt people not taking you seriously as a tech expert? I mean, it may be a combination of societal expectations (i.e., "women don't know from tech") and their personal experience with other female tech "experts" that might not cut the mustard. My grandmother was born before women had the vote, and garnered tremendous respect in her career (and significant status), once people saw what she was capable of, the same way those men at the store were with me. But if there is any sense that less qualified women are hired into tech positions because of their gender, would that lead to women being taken more or less seriously? I would guess that because of feminism, there might be a lot of extremely competent women in tech fields who might not otherwise be there--but I do know that because of feminism, there are a LOT of marginally competent women in those fields now.

Equal opportunity without incentives and quotas might result in less women going into those positions, but the ones that did make it would be assumed to be there because they're good at what they do, having made it while competing fairly with the best in the field. Once a woman had made it, like my grandmother, they got automatic respect, because they made it on their own, if they were there in the first place it was because they'd already proved themselves and then some.

I suppose I can accept your answer about losing physical strength. I will say that as two non-confrontational people, my bf--at 28--has already been severely physically assaulted 4 times more than I have at 40. And I'll try to reassure you a bit--at 14, I fought off two attackers and managed to prevent a rape. And when I was 24 and about 110 lbs, and a 32 inch TV fell on my kids (they were 8 months and 2 years at the time), I picked that butt-heavy old-fashioned TV up and threw it 14 feet across the room. When your adrenaline is pumping, you'll find you have a lot of strength you didn't know you had--possibly enough to almost equalize that of an attacker. And then if you can, you punch him in the throat. :)

[–]throwawaydirl 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you think that the women who do play up the "I'm just a girl" thing when it suits them poison the well for everyone else?

Do you really need me to answer that?

Also, do you think feminism has helped or hindered you wrt people not taking you seriously as a tech expert?

I'd have to say helped. Before feminism, a woman couldn't vote, and many very competant women were pretty much tied to the homemaker role.

once people saw what she was capable of

Indeed. But I'll bet your grandfather didn't have to prove himself in that way before he was given a chance.

there are a LOT of marginally competent women in those fields now.

Well, there are also a lot of marginally competant men! :P

OK - you are talking about "affirmative action". AA does not exist in my jurisdiction. Would I like to see it here? To be honest, I'm not sure, though with one exception - namely that I think political parties should be required to have gender quotas for their candidates.

Why do I make that exception? Politics is the business of representing the people. There is something very wrong with that business when 50% of the people are represented by, like, 20% of the candidates (and I'm talking about candidates, not those actually voted into power). Given the vital nature of the business of politics to the proper functioning of society, and given how broken it is, I think there is moral scope for the law to intervene.

And, before you jump up-and-down about the disabled and other minorities - yes, I think there is scope there too. Parliament needs to have all voices represented in as much as is practicable.

And I'll try to reassure you a bit

I'm not necessarily more scared as such when I'm out - I'm just definitely more aware.

[–]girlwriteswhat 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, my grandfather was never given such chances to prove himself. My grandmother was a manager at a large department store, and later postmistress of her community. My grandfather was a rural mail carrier in the winter and a construction worker in the summer.

And I think most people don't realize that it wasn't that long before women's suffrage that ordinary men got the right to vote, as well. It was only in 1850 that pretty much every white man could vote in the US--before that, the right was limited to property owners. It was only in 1870 that blacks were granted the vote. Within 20 years of that, some states had begun initiatives to bar mostly blacks and the poor from voting, through poll taxes and literacy tests. It was only in 1915 that literacy tests were banned.

So really, there were concerted efforts to keep a LOT of people, not just women, from being able to vote. Some of the clauses limiting voting rights to those who could pay a poll tax, or those who could pass a literacy test, were enacted to discriminate against black men and Irish American men, specifically. In fact, Native Americans didn't have full rights as citizens until 1924. It's interesting to note that women's suffrage didn't suffer from these issues at all--once it was granted, there were no stipulations or conditions placed on women's right to vote the way there systematically was with men and with other groups.

As far as AA in politics? I think it's grossly unfair to women on an individual level. The choice to seek political office is one burdened with sacrifice and risk, and I think part of the reason so few women take it on is because their cost/risk/benefit analysis just does not add up--especially given the well-known fact that neither men nor women, when asked, will express trust of women (as a group) in positions of high authority and power. (In this area, I think feminism has been a double-edged sword for women, just as AA has been--I'll explain why if you like).

Being in politics means giving up a lot of work/life balance. And I don't think there's any way to make campaigning "family friendly", because the results of campaigning--who gets elected--often consist of who gets their face and name out there more than the next person.

Political office boils down to 100% personal choice--the choice of someone to run (and no one is actively stopping women from running), and the choice of the voters to elect. I think it might be largely a matter of evolutionary rather than revolutionary social change being better. There are certainly more women in politics now than 50 years ago. There will be more women in politics 20 years from now. The problem with legislating such things to engineer immediate change is that society resists change for a good reason--it's difficult to start it changing, and very difficult to shift or halt its momentum once that change is underway, if you realize you don't care for where it's leading you.

This is why most revolutions have always resulted in unstable governments or societies, or worse tyranny than before. Stable, steady, organically occurring progress is, IMO, preferable to immediacy in enacting these kinds of changes, simply because society on the whole is more tolerant of it. It seems unfair to individuals, for sure, or to specific groups, but as long as those individuals and groups are not barred from participating to the fullest extent in the political process, as long as a career in politics is one of choice that is open to all, efforts to force change rather than allow change to continue organically seem to me to be both misguided and not altogether necessary.

[–]NovemberTrees 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zyk0s 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fondueguy 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Men's suffering is taken less seriously, boys are called silly in the classroom, and men are not even allowed to talk about their feelings!

Fifth time?

How can you be taken seriously if your that restricted I wonder.

My emotions might be taken more seriously, but since when are emotions taken seriously on a conference call with clients? Or in an interview room with people who have a job to offer?

Just not as much as a woman...

Just (almost certainly) not as much as this woman, for the reason outlined above, namely that I'm transgender.

There are tons of women with more privilege than you, and tons with less. So, what are you going to do about it? Be bitter at those with more? Those with less?? Or do you deny that there are those with less??? Can you at least accept that I have less?!?!??!!!!!

[–]fondueguy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whoooah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fondueguy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo[M] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrLaughter 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Dear Transsexuals
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	42
Comments	74
Date	August 22, 2011 2:57 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/jq73y/dear_transsexuals/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/dear-transsexuals.1035624 https://theredarchive.com/post/1035624

Comments