Tweet
Update/Correction: Julie Bindel is on the short list for the Stonwall award mentioned in the piece below — she hasn’t already won this award from Stonewall. In the same vein as this opinion piece below; however, my opinion is that she shouldn’t be on the short list.
It really bothers me that when an LGB or LGBT organization honors someone who speaks against the interest of the broader LGBT community’s T’s.
So, with a little frustration, let me express some disappointment in the UK’s Stonewall organization’s plan to honor journalist Julie Bindel.
Let me be frank at the beginning though. The UK’s Stonewallhas a lucid description of its mission scope on its page logo and subheader. The subheader states “Equality & Justice for Lesbians, Gay Men & Bisexuals.” Note that it doesn’t mention T’s. The organization; however, must have some recognition that they function within a broader LGBT community as they have a Trans Resources webpage (as well as another 135 webpages that mention trans people or trans issues if one uses their site search with trans OR transgender OR transsexual OR “gender identity”) on their website.
In fact, in Stonewall‘s booklet Transgender, they have a definition of Transphobia:
Transphobia is the unrealistic or irrational fear and hatred of transgender people. Like all prejudices, it is based on negative stereotypes and misconceptions that are then used to justify and support hatred, discrimination, harassment, and violence toward people who are transgender. Transphobic attitudes and beliefs include:• the belief that trans women are not “real women” because they have been raised and socialised as men
• the belief that trans men are not “real men” because they do not have, or were not born with a penis
• the belief that transsexual people are actually gay people in denial
• the assumption that transgender people are “sick” or that they are psychologically unstable
• when a transgender person is excluded from services, activities, discussions or decisions because it is felt that that person doesn’t “fit in”
• the refusal to recognise or acknowledge the true gender of a trans person and the continual insistence to refer to them by their former name
The booklet also identifies issues for transgender folk, which include denial of medical treatment and healthcare providers having no information about available treatments or surgeries and no understanding of trans issues.
So in my opinion, a declared LGB-only civil rights organization that has policy positions on trans issues in their Discrimination Law Review, and defines transphobia for its organization, shouldn’t be honoring someone who’s made transphobic statements in arguing against full medical treatment access for trans people. Yet, Stonewall has decided to honor Julie Bindel as their 2008 “Journalist of the Year.”
In 2004, Julie Bindel — a journalist who identifies as a lesbian feminist — wrote a column for The Guardian entitled Gender benders, beware where she used quotation marks around the female pronouns and terms to describe a male-to-female transsexual (examples: “she”; “woman”), and referred to the post-operative transsexual as “a man in a dress.” Some of what Bindel wrote:
[Below the fold: Quotes of Bindel where she uses transphobic language, and her aguing against genital reconstruction surgery for transsexuals. Multiple audio file links of her arguing against surgery for transsexuals provided.]
Twenty years ago, when I worked on an advice line for lesbians, I would take call after call from self-hating, suicidal women who had experienced horrific homophobia. Thanks to feminism and gay liberation, that situation has altered radically. What a disgrace, therefore, that our legacy amounts to this: if you are unhappy with the constraints of your gender, don’t challenge them. If you are tired of being stared at for snogging your same-sex partner in the street, have a sex change. Where are those who go berserk about the ethics of genetic engineering yet seem not to worry about major, irreversible surgery on healthy bodies? Also, those who “transition” seem to become stereotypical in their appearance – fuck-me shoes and birds’-nest hair for the boys; beards, muscles and tattoos for the girls. Think about a world inhabited just by transsexuals. It would look like the set of Grease.…I don’t have a problem with men disposing of their genitals, but it does not make them women, in the same way that shoving a bit of vacuum hose down your 501s does not make you a man.
She has since apologized for the tone of her piece, but not for her conclusions. By the definition of transphobia on Stonewall‘s own website, Julie Bindel would be transphobic.
In 2007, Bindel wrote another column for The Guardian entitled My trans mission; Sex-change surgery is the modern equivalent of aversion therapy for homosexuals. Her mission against trans interest changed her position from “I don’t have a problem with men disposing of their genitals” to one where she stated she wants to outlaw genital reassignment surgery. The article in The Guardian references the August 1st, 2007 episode of Hecklers. In the article she states:
During the debate I argued that sex change surgery is modern-day aversion therapy treatment for homosexuals. The highest number of sex change operations take place in Iran, where homosexuality is punishable by death. Sex change surgery, therefore, renders gays and lesbians “heterosexual”.
In other words, it’s a variant on the tired argument that female-to-male transsexuals are really just super-lesbians, and male-to-female transsexuals are really just super-gays.
An excerpt from the Hecklers episode where she lays out her initial proposition:
The full audio file of the Hecklers debate is here.
She again spells out her beliefs in another audio with female-to-male transsexual Steve Whittle. In the write up by Press For Change for that second audio, that organization states:
Do make sure you listen to the whole programme – and don’t jump to conclusions from the first five minutes in which Julie sets out her beliefs. What emerges is something that comes a lot closer to bridging a seemingly impossible divide. The irony is that trans campaigners tend to share the essence of some of Julie’s views about gender – just maybe from a slightly different angle. However the dialogue has to happen, and the tone of the voices needs to be heard, in order for that commonality to be appreciated.
I did listen to it. I believe the opinions of Julie Bindel are dead wrong. Bindel’s solution of denying transsexuals access to genital reconstruction surgery is the wrong solution to very real issues she brings up. Better healthcare services by the healthcare providers is the better solution.
So, I can’t help but feel that Stonewall‘s nomination of journalist Julie Bindel for an civil rights organization “Journalist Of The Year” award is wrongheaded. Even leaving out the horrible language she used in 2004 (and later apologised for), she’s not recognizing the gender identity of transsexuals, she’s arguing that transsexuals are psychologically disturbed, and she is arguing for inadequate medical options of transseuxals. Those things all fit within Stonewall‘s own definition of transphobia.
So, let me sum this up briefly: Bindel advocates a non-academic, non-scientific position regarding the surgical options for all transsexuals. Her position appears to be contrary to Stonewall’s stated beliefs about appropriate healthcare for transsexuals. Bindal has used highly transphobic language to put forward her beliefs about transsexuals’ surgical options. To this day she still doesn’t recognize or respect the gender identities of transsexual people. Given all this, it’s just beyond the pale that the UK’s Stonewall plans to honor Julie Bindel with a journalism award.
My opinion is that Stonewall should immediately rescind their scheduled honoring of Julie Bindel. That’s because Bindel’s behavior clearly fits Stonewall‘s own definition of transphobia. For an organization that defines transphobia — and clearly sees behavior relating to transphobia as being wrong — to honor someone who has in recent years has engaged in transphobic speech is inappropriate and wrong.
.
33 Comments
feminist women have reason to be skeptical of gender normsbut also need to see things as they are – the enemies are the Palins and Dobsons, the Goodyear and WalMart bosses, and so on – not girly women, cis or trans, or ex-butch transmen.
I can understand some initial hostility on hearing about the lesbian-feminist stereotype-breaking heroes presenting as butch women, and considering them sell-outs when transitioning to trans men. That was my thought at first – going stealth to improve career prospects seemed to me to be like passing for white. Then it struck me that a woman who thought of herself as definitely woman would have to be at the edge of survival or just nuts to transition for a job or power. Therefore most people transitioning are doing so for deeper reasons. It also struck me that transmen are socialized as women and may not have the same culture-enforced automatic assumption of entitlement and power over women as a majority of cismen have. So, when I finally ended up meeting individual transmen, I had gotten over the idea that I knew anything.
Bindel needs to do a bit of thinking. She also needs to read “Whipping Girl”.
Many thanks…for the huge amount of work you’ve done on this Autumn.
This is bullshit….that they are giving this woman an award. Stonewall should be able to do better then this. There are plenty of feminists out there that don’t say messed up things about transfolk and I’m sure if they scratched the surface, they could find a better journalist to honor.
Autumn, would you consider posting this over to feministing.com? They have a community blog there now, and I think their readers would find this interesting and appalling.
re/bindelguardian.co.uk
A change, of course
The readers’ editor on …
a column that did no favours for an often-abused minority
On January 31 the Guardian’s Weekend magazine published the first of two articles by the lesbian feminist Julie Bindel, written in the place recently vacated by Julie Burchill. The column, under the heading “Gender benders, beware” applauded the decision by the British Columbia supreme court to overturn a ruling that the human rights of Kimberley Nixon, a male-to-female transsexual, had been violated when she was denied the opportunity to train as a counsellor of female rape victims. Ms Nixon was referred to as “she” in quotation marks. What rape victims would expect, the writer argued, was counselling from “women who have suffered similar experiences, not from a man in a dress”.
The writer similarly applauded a judge’s decision in Britain to reject a claim of sex discrimination brought against a pub landlord by five male-to-female transsexuals “only one of whom had disposed of his meat and two veg”. She criticised the Equal Opportunities Commission for supporting the claimants and agreed with the judge, who said that while he respected their wish to be regarded as women, a person’s wish (apparently quoting the judge directly) “doesn’t determine what he is”.
Further into the piece there was a reference to Kwik-Fit sex changes, and the injunction to “think about a world inhabited just by transsexuals. It would look like the set of Grease.” The column concluded: “To go back to my five men and a toilet, I don’t have a problem with men disposing of their genitals, but it does not make them women, in the same way that shoving a bit of vacuum hose down your 501s does not make you a man.”
The column attracted about 200 letters, nearly all of which I have read. There was clearly an international lobby at work but this by no means accounted for all the mail. All but four or five of the letters were condemnatory of the views expressed in the column. Many of them condemned the Guardian for publishing the piece. The Guardian was also criticised for the caricature illustration used with the column – a hairy-chested tattooed figure in a dress with a badge reading “I’m a lady.”
Most of the letters went directly to Weekend, which published four of them – all critical of the column – the following Saturday. Some later correspondents felt that freedom of expression had thus been reasonably exercised. One wrote, “[Julie Bindel's] diatribe about transsexuals was unbelievably insensitive, but nevertheless she had a perfect right to express her thoughts, and to suffer the resulting slings and arrows.”
About a dozen letters came to me in the form of complaints. Some readers also made it clear that they were complaining to the Press Complaints Commission. The complaints were broadly that the article poured gratuitous offence on the members of a minority who already suffered discrimination and sometimes physical attack; that it showed not just a lack of sympathy but a lack of understanding of the experience of a transsexual person; that the language used by the writer tended to reinforce stereotypical views of transsexual people and thereby to encourage others to treat them with disdain or even hatred.
The editor of Weekend said: “We [run] vigorous, opinionated and provocative columns on a whole range of subjects and this is something I’m keen to continue and protect … There are very many times that we disagree with our columnists, sometimes vociferously, but that is not the point – we are not looking for consensus.
“In this case, we thought that what Julie Bindel was writing was particularly interesting because it came from her – a lesbian activist for the rights of women and children. … She is a rare kind of writer who puts her money where her mouth is.”
Julie Bindel said that writing in a different place and at greater length the tone might have differed and the piece itself have been more analytical. “I know that lots of those wishing to go through sex change are deeply troubled and suffer discrimination.” However, she would still say that was not the solution. “We have invented a solution to a problem that we still do not really understand.”
Dismay at the piece was registered not only by transsexual people but by doctors, therapists, academics and others involved in the field. One therapist wrote: “Transgendered people would like to go about their lives in peace and dignity.” This column, which obscured any argument in discriminatory language, would not help them to do that. It abused an already abused minority that the Guardian might have been expected to protect.
About this article
Ian Mayes: A change, of course
This article appeared in the Guardian on Saturday February 14 2004 .
I think a slight correction isneeded…Julie Bindel is on the shortlist for the award – it’s not yet confirmed that she will get it; there are four others up for the award.
Nevertheless, the fact that she has even been shortlisted is an inexcusable insult to all the hard work the Trans and genderqueer community has put into LGBT rights over the years. She should never have been even considered for the Award.
I’m honestly curious…Is what Bindel says about statistics for gender reassignment surgery in Iran true? If so, what sociological reasons have been advanced to explain it? I kind of remember reading something about the Iranian government forcing gender reassignment therapy on ‘suspected homosexuals’, but I’m not positive.
There was a Fatwa…issued (I think) by Ayatollah Khomeini back in the ’70s or ’80s, stating that T was not a sin. Consequently many gay men choose to undergo gender reassignment surgery as a means of avoiding the death penalty. The overwhelming majority of Iranian “T’s” are not T at all – they’re ordinary cisgendered gay men who rip out a part of themselves in order to comply with social and religious expectations.
Presumably…She’ll be the next addition to the DSM-V gender identity committee.
LetterOne of those letters may have been mine. I remember the incident vivdly. She is a hateful person.
I would not be surprised in the least…seeing as the UK’s Equality & Human Rights Commission includes (alongside Ben Summerskill, Stonewall’s Chief Executive) Joel Edwards, an influential religious homophobe and General Director of the Evangelical Alliance – essentially he’s a British version of James Dobson. How he got the position is a mystery – Edwards led the EA & Christian Institute‘s campaign against the 2006 Equality Act, the legislation that created the EHRC in the first place, on the basis that including protections for LGBs* would lead to “religious discrimination” (i.e. they wouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against us any more).
A friend of mine used to be Joel Edwards’ line manager before he became involved with the EA (he was a probation officer) and describes him as “very sly, very sneaky, very clever” – the impression I have of him is of a man who won’t ever actually cross the line, but will skate so close that it doesn’t actually make any difference. His nomination as Commissioner was protested by at least one union (interestingly, it was NAPO – the Probation Officers’ union; I know as when I was a LAGIP rep I helped write the protest, along with his former line-manager – who is gay – and the NAPO LGBT rep) and I think may have been protested by the TUC as well – that was certainly our intention!
Comforting to know we can turn to someone we can really trust, isn’t it?
*they didn’t include T’s as there isn’t any discrimination legislation protecting us yet – mainly because a new act is being worked on which will replace all previous discrimination legislation.
Yesterday…I sent the following email to Stonewall, protesting Julie Bindel’s nomination:
I just received the following response:
I have replied with…
the reply is a form letterI got that reply for my protest too, I know others have got the same, so they must be getting an awful lot of protesters to come up with that. Though, it’ll probably end up with that Weasel-y Guardian-type whine about an “orchestrated international campaign” which will be their excuse to ignore us.
I replied asking whether they’d honour an obviously homophobic reporter for bringing an interesting perspective into the mainstream press, but I think that will go over their mattachined little heads.
PetitionAn e-Petition has been started here registering protest at Stonewall’s inclusion of Bindel on the awards shortlist. Please sign – it takes just a few seconds.
TransmenNancyP wrote, “It also struck me that transmen are socialized as women and may not have the same culture-enforced automatic assumption of entitlement and power over women as a majority of cismen have.”
Speaking only for myself of course, I grew up with an outspoken feminist mother who pointed out male privilege to me on a daily basis. Seeing myself as male on the inside, and knowing I was a male with no privilege, (but not quite making the connection that it was because of my female body), I always responded to her by pointing out that not all men enjoyed privilege and observed that some women enjoy privilege over men (for example: the sexy women in James Bond movies who seem to hold enormous power over the men). I’ll admit that I never truly understood the deeper meaning of male privilege, largely due to my own circumstances. I’m just beginning to see it, as I only recently starting passing as male about 50% of the time. Strangers who “Sir” me are much more respectful toward me than those who “Ma’am” me, and the increased respect comes from both men and women.
I’ve had my share of encounters with lesbian feminists, and the thing that frustrates me most is the widespread stereotype that all transmen are former butch lesbians. Some people refuse to let go of this stereotype, even when confronted with gay transmen like myself who never had any connection to the lesbian community. I certainly understand the source of the stereotype–The majority of transmen are straight and did at one time identify as lesbians. To a lesbian who watches her former girlfriend or wife transition to male, it must appear as a horrendous betrayal, not only to her, but to feminism itself. Much education remains to be done.
Regardless, Stonewall shouldn’t be honoring journalists who continue to slander the trans community. Their beliefs have caused untold damage to our ability to obtain medical treatment and civil rights. If Bindel ever sees her error and starts writing articles about that in an attempt to educate her fellow feminists, then she should be reconsidered. Until then, she’s a bigot undeserving of recognition, because there’s so much information out there now that ignorance is no longer a valid excuse.
Other Thoughts…Bindel also appears to ignore the fact that in some areas of life women have greater rights than men in the West – reproduction and parenting being two particularly relevant examples. The patriarchal social systems that Feminism (quite rightly) seeks to destroy are unfair on women, but the patriarchal system isn’t being replaced by genuine gender equality – it’s being replaced by an unbalanced hotch-potch that I think is inherently divisive.
Right from conception, the father’s rights are subservient to those of the mother – for the first several months the father has no legal means to prevent the mother from terminating his child’s life. His feelings in the matter are completely irrelevant and ignored – even though the child is as much his as it is hers. This is why I believe other forms of contraception – condoms, femidoms, the pill, etc. – should always be used in preference to abortion – this is not the case at present.
After birth if the parents should split up the disparity continues. For example, in a majority of cases where custody of a child ends up in court the mother gets either full or partial custody of the child – irrespective of the reasons why the case has ended up in court. This even happens when mother is a drug addict or alcoholic and/or a spouse-abuser, while the father is drug-free and is in work or college (I’m thinking of a specific case here) or where the parents split due to the mother’s infidelity (again, I am thinking of a specific case).
When a father is denied visitation rights for his own children, even if through no fault of his own but simply due to “distress” cause to the mother, he still has to pay child support if his income is greater than his ex-partner’s. He has to pay for his child’s upkeep, while being denied the right to be their father.
In instances where the father does have visitation rights, the mother will sometimes use the child as a pawn – forcing the father to jump through hoops in the hope that he will be able to see his son or daughter for a few short hours a month. Sometimes the mother will “forget” that her child’s father was due to spend time with his kid, knowing that she is unlikely to suffer any reprimand; or she will tell the child lies about his father and try to turn them against him (this is something I’ve learned from now-adult children from divided families – it is usually the mother, not the father, who tries to turn their children against the other parent).
Fortunately these are a minority of cases, but they are common and unpleasant enough that they are a serious concern for some straight guys. It may even be one cause behind the drop in Western birthrates: how many men are choosing – whether consciously or unconsciously – not to reproduce because they fear having the right to be father to their own kids taken away from them?
Feminism claims to be about ensuring equality for women, however by implication that means ensuring equality for men as well (I think Orwell made that pretty clear in Animal Farm) and in this Feminism is failing. If Bindel were really a feminist she would recognise this fact and oppose the discrimination against fathers. Despite having written several articles dealing with families where the parents are separated, she does not once ask whether or not fathers might be happy with a situation where they are shut out of their child’s life.
Good pointI knew a man once who couldn’t even afford to put a roof over his head because child support took over half his income. He had full visitation, but he was living in his car so it didn’t do him any good.
sorry, but this (above) comment is pure B***sh**‘tavdy79′ writes:
“Right from conception, the father’s rights are subservient to those of the mother – for the first several months the father has no legal means to prevent the mother from terminating his child’s life. His feelings in the matter are completely irrelevant and ignored – even though the child is as much his as it is hers”
uh, excuse me,
this (above) is NOT feminism.
hello:
“women deserve control over their own bodies”?!!!
what are you, the Right?
“Right from conception, the father’s rights are subservient to those of the mother”
yes, we have LAWS here in western countries that guarantee
this. You might want to look into that.
sounds like a vote for palin , by your comments.
You might want to educate yourself on these issues.
it’s 2008,tavdy79
And if it sounds like i’m slapping YOU down,
it’s because I AM.
-javier
REAL feminism( Bindel can’t own it, right?)re/ ‘tavdy79′
any “Transfeminists”
noticing THIS comment?
any caring to weigh in?
i should HOPE so….
(it seems to have passed “unnoticed”….)
Now, Bindel is a total a**hat, but she’d be on THIS.
‘whatup?
would this(below) be feminism? aren’t we as Feminist as julie is?(otherwise, we can’t truely and non hypocritically critisize her brand of Hatred…)
_____________________________________________________
‘tavdy79′ | September 30, 2008, 7:39am | wrote:
(website will be left unnammed)
“I agree with JimG, and would add that keeping abortion so readily available is massively irresponsible at a time when diseases like HIV are spreading rapidly amongst heterosexuals, and when abortion can cause serious psychological and emotional problems for some women”
“serious psychological and emotional problems
for some women”
……..ok, so a gay guy knows this, because?
(are YOU a Woman?)
__________________________________________________________
….J.Bindel is laying into OUR community as a FEMINIST.
are we Feminist?
can we be?
i believe so…..
can we prove her wrong?
again,i believe so.
why then,
do we OPPOSE constraints on OUR bodily “procedures”
(re/ tg), if we don’t tow the same line for bodily FREEDOM for bio females?(or get as pissed off?)
And,how can someone be pro Gay
and not pro female with a straight face?
(or Black, or whatever so called “minority” one is.)
how can we not see ourselves, in the Other?
this is partly what gives power to the Palin’s of this world.Our own lack of support for each OTHER.
-J
Discrimination…is any preferential rights or treatment given to one person or group over another person or group on the basis of an arbitrary distinction neither can control.
Giving one parent – irrespective of gender – greater rights than the other over their child’s future, irrespective of the motives, is discrimination. If a woman is pregnant and does not want the child it is wrong to force her to carry it to term because the father does want it, but it is also unfair to the father to allow her to have an abortion and so deny him the right to be a father to that child – it is his child as much as hers.
The only means that I know of by which this inequality – an unavoidable limitation in our species – can be solved is to avoid the situation as far as possible, and that means using forms of contraception that prevent pregnancy from occurring in the first place – of which there are a great many options available, most of which are far easier and much less costly, invasive, distressing and controversial than abortions.
I am not advocating a return to a patriarchal system where the father’s rights take precedence over the mother’s. Nor am I advocating a complete ban on abortions. I am advocating a return to equality, where neither has greater rights than the other and both take responsibility. If that means women have to start swallowing their pride and carrying condoms in their handbags, that’s fine with me; and if that’s a problem, they should bear in mind that many men & male-bodied genderqueers already keep condoms and lube with them, so women aren’t being asked to do anything men don’t.
Incidentally, this viewpoint is similar to the one held by my parents who, despite being conservative in most respects, are supporters of gender equality that, had they believed otherwise, would have aborted me 30 years ago because they conceived 3 months earlier than intended. If they held your viewpoint I would be long dead and thrown away with the trash, unnamed and unwanted.
Sexual equality……means equality for all sexes. Indeed, the issue of abortion rights is complicated by the fact that one sex carries the unborn child within her body. Things would be much simpler if we laid eggs.
I’m certainly pro-choice. The government should have no say on the issue. But I agree with Tavdy79 that there’s the thorny issue of the father’s rights. Why shouldn’t he (unless he’s a rapist of course) have any say in the life of his unborn child, (barring a medical necessity for having the pregnancy terminated)?
Both parties are responsible for the pregnancy. Both chose to engage in that activity which produces babies. Ideally, both should share equally in the consequences and joys of said pregnancy. Unfortunately, nature made the system of reproduction unequal in that the woman does all the work of bringing the baby into the world. The best solution would be for every heterosexual couple to think long and hard about, and discuss at length, whether they want to have a baby together before having unprotected sex. Personally, I don’t understand why this isn’t the norm. Well, it sure doesn’t seem to be anyway.
That’s hardly a vote for Palin. Come on, be reasonable.
are YOU a Woman?I’m a bio-male psych-hermaphrodite genderqueer – which means that unlike most I can to a degree see both sides of the situation. I would hate to have to bear a man’s child against my will – but I would equally hate to have an person take away my child, irrespective of the means by which they did so.
Re. the psychological problems – a friend of mine took an overdose (probably intentionally) due to severe depression following an abortion. I think that counts as “psychological problems”. I have seen too many friends die from overdoses and suicide to let that kind of thing just pass me by.
Abortion vs. TransitionAs I said above, I’m pro-choice, so I disagree with Tavdy79 here. But in the interest of technical fairness, there is a difference between abortion and transition. The right to transition involves one body, that of the person transitioning. Abortion involves two bodies, that of the mother and that of the fetus, and while I don’t think an unborn fetus should have any legal rights, it can be argued that the father of that fetus may some some rights in regard to it.
What about neonatal male circumcision? Do feminists oppose that? Does a male child not have a right his own bodily integrity?
I never actually said…I was entirely anti-choice – I simply have a problem with the attitude shown by many men and women towards abortion – that it’s some kind of quick fix – to me that is an irresponsible attitude, especially considering the risks posed by STDs – which alone is a strong motive for encouraging the use of condoms over abortions as a means of birth control.
If I’d like to see abortions made harder to get, it’s because of the spread of STDs, not because of unwanted pregnancies: if you make abortions harder to get, people will rely on condoms as a means of contraception and STD infections will hopefully fall. It’s not laws which need to change – it’s attitudes. After all, if women are truly equal then there will be no shame in them carrying a condom around – and that’s the main reason why women don’t do so.
Abortion and CondomsI thought sexually active women did carry condoms in their purses. They don’t? Why not? I agree with you that there is absolutely no shame in that. But I don’t think making abortions harder to get will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. I would think the prevalence of STDs alone would reduce them by encouraging the use of condoms, but that doesn’t seem to either.
When abortions were illegal, women went to underground clinics run by unlicensed “doctors” or worse, used a coat hanger or some other sharp object. Making abortions harder to get would certainly lead to more of the same.
Unfortunately, it appears that the only way to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs is education, which is difficult and frustrating, and needs to be much more aggressive.
So, if my being a male to female transsexualmeans I am a hyper male homosexual, how come I was never attracted to men before I transitioned or after.
That is one of many things that tells me she and her theories are full of crap.
Dena
Curious situationBindel espouses a feminism that is passe’, even the redoubtable Mary Daly has expressed disdain and displeasure over the subculture that the Separatists managed to create, an exclusory, elitist replication of the patriarchal model peopled only by “real” Lesbians. A “real” Lesbian has not a whiff of testosterone about her, never married or at least a girlfriend before she inadvertantly married and quickly divorced.
I spent the weekend at a women’s retreat in the Catskills where a 61 year old Lesbian comisserated with a Lesbian of operative history how she too was considered not to be a “real” Leesbian by some of the Separatist purists despite being out for approaching 35 years because she acknowledges a few sexual forays with men after coming out, by and large purely sexual and situational with very close male friends.
Bindel is far removed from Irigaray, Kristeva, Rose, or Cisoux. She is not a theorist, she is not a psychologist of note, she is not a psychiatrist yet she feels free to pontificate upon a subject using a form of feminism that even Daly distances herself from and criticises.
However, Stonewall, my dears, is dominated by gay men with a rather notorious disdain for trans-people, considering them to be gay men in denialin the most extreme case or fetishists using a medical excuse for 24/7 play in the less extreme case. Bindel speaks to a young crowd of angry women who feel disenfranchised and her arguments are addictive because they are simplistic, for instance, “if the Iranians use SRS coercively, then all SRS is bad and keep those boys out of our space” By and large she speaks in grammaticaly complicated platitudes using polysyllabic words to paint a pseudoscientific gloss on what is merely a visceral reaction from within herself to the idea that neurobiology might be just a bit more complicated than she is capable of understanding.
I doubt seriously that a Lesbian activist that wrote that Lesbianism is innate, but that gay men are the result of societal pressures and bad parents and can and should be cured with psychotherapy could get published in any gay press in the UK, let alone be considered fro one of Stonewall’s awards. But, as always, the trans community is a special case. And Julie Bindel, trying to make rational sense out of a chaotic world by either/or simplifications and platitudes, presented as science through the use of clever prose footnoted with hyperbolic tangents, is just their kind of girl.
You’re right, Wolfgang:education is essential if you’re going to change attitudes – the fights against racism and homophobia are good examples of this. You can’t reduce availability & use of one form of birth control without first making sure people are adequately informed about the alternatives, and reducing the number of abortions through education is far better than reducing them arbitrarily.
And no, sexually active women don’t always carry condoms in their purses, at least not where I live: they fear being branded as sluts by doing so. As many gay men did in the 1980s and ’90s, they place pride over long-term health.
Talk about condescending!ICK!
Translation
In other words, she uses fancy language to hide that she can’t admit that she’s too thick to understand trans people.
Yuppersthat and the fact that she pulls the ideas and their basis out of this air…
Not a transfeministbut most certainly a feminist and I’ve posted a response concerning Bindel further down the post.