skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Okay, I just saw a post on Transadvocate where Dana Taylor has decided to join the transgender side. Now, it is, of course, one's right to choose how one views the world, and who one wishes to align oneself with. For me to say otherwise would be hypocrisy.
But when I read the reason, "The Cotton Ceiling" I had to do a bit of checking. I knew it had something to do with the whole rad fem versus trans kerfuffle. But I was not sure of the details.
Here is what I found...
“…the Cotton Ceiling – with reference to knickers – is the term parts of the trans community have inventively adopted for the way that, however theoretically accepting of trans people a lot of progressives may be, when it comes to actually having sex with us, they vote with their …um…feet.”
In other words, it is about complaining because someone is exercising their basic human right to choose who, and who not, to have sex with. Now, let me be clear on several things here. Since I completed my transition, I have had sex with several men, none of whom knew my history. It was none of their business. Unlike the transgender crowd, I have no need to reveal my medical history in order to get my jollies. Had someone known, and decided to decline, I might have had my feelings hurt, but I would have seen it as their right to make that decision. Just as it is my right to decide, for example, if I want to date someone who is an FTM. I have done so, but I don't know that I would always make that choice. I had one post op friend who was almost stalked by a rather obnoxious FTM. She did not want to date him, but for a while, he was almost comical in his pursuit of her... almost, but more creepy than funny.
But according to the "cotton ceiling" crowd, lesbians should be ashamed of making a choice that it is their right to make. Taken to its logical extreme, and I have actually seen this done, straight men should have no right to turn down a "trans woman," in other words, quite possibly, a dude in a dress, who wants to go to be with him. Now, I had a few dates before surgery and on occasion the guy did not know when we first met. I alway was careful how I revealed my, uh, situation in order to avoid any violence. I don't believe such violence is warranted, nor do I believe the trans panic defense should be allowed. I also think pre-op transsexuals as well as transgender men, should exercise caution to avoid being injured or worse, murdered. But this cotton ceiling crap is just creepy. If you feel the need to broadcast your history, people have a right to take it into consideration when deciding if they want you as a sexual partner. There is a word for trying to deny someone the right to make a decision based on that knowledge. It is called rape. If a woman does not want to have sex with you because she does not believe you are an appropriate partner, whether that woman is of trans history or not (and I have known of trans women, who identified as lesbian, who also did not want to have sex with transgender men, but you insist they do not have that right, then hey Bro' you are proving, you da man!
If anyone wants a good example of the sort of behavior that lies behind my statement that I don't "misgender" transgender men, this is one of the best....
In what seems like a blast from the past, there is a new controversy over an attack on "transwomen" by a "radical feminist/lesbian separatist." The controversy started with an article at a site called the "Magazine Project. That article, entitled "Transwomen" are Merely Castrated Men was attacked by ultra bigot Monica Roberts. Roberts' rant became fodder for an article by transgender activist Suzan Cooke.
Now, on the one hand, the original article is pretty nasty, and the author, as is typical of extremists, paints with a very broad brush. But that does not mean that she is completely wrong. The sad thing is, there is a lot of truth in the article.
For one thing, some transgender people cannot understand why many, if not most, women are put off by them. They simply cannot grasp that they really are acting like men, and have no real female essence. But they want to call themselves "lesbians," and they cannot understand why real lesbians are not lining up to enjoy their, well, as Roberts would put, neoclits. Well, duh....
Of course, these same kooks can't quite seem to grasp that some men are going to lose it when they find that their new girlfriend is physically a male. Now, I don't excuse the violence that results, but I also think people need to use some simple common sense. I mean, really, women learn to avoid certain situations, but men think they have some sort of privilege.
The problem with the original article is that the author ignores science and relies on feminist myth. Yes, there are a lot of "transwomen" of the sort she describes. But they are not representative of transsexuals. Of course, the author, as a I said, paints with a broad brush. I suspect, like some men, she fears having sex with someone who was once physically a male. But, this person, like Roberts, and Cooke, is an extremist. For her, the world is simple, and well, she is completely right, and everyone she disagrees with is completely wrong.
Likewise, Cooke and Roberts are so insecure that the very idea that there is someone out there who just might seem them differently than the way they see themselves sends them into fits of outrage. Does it bother me if someone attacks my identity? Of course. But I also consider the source. I could care less what some radical feminist/lesbian feminist, who has never met me, thinks about me. Trust me, there are far more reasons for her to dislike me than my history. There is little in her narrow minded philosophy that I would not find reprehensible. There is little of my world view that would not send her into fits of outrage. So why should I care if she is even more bigoted?
I tend to ignore people like her. She is not even worth addressing, except that she does make some good points, that are lost on the other kooks. They only focus on the hatred, to avoid the truth. It's sad. They all have something to learn, but none what to see it.