I suppose that’s that, then. I have just a few left-over thoughts that the rest of your comments sparked.

I both agree and disagree with your framing of the issues in this comment thread. For example, I agree that trans is at its core essentialist in a way that I, as a genderqueer individual, find very annoying. Having said that, I don’t think it’s fair to say that “[t]he basic assumption of trans ideology is that people have inherent pre-social gender identities” – most trans individuals with whom I’ve interacted are not essentialist in that (very specific) way. Instead, they strongly identify as stereotypically (read: as dictated by society) male or female – in a society that punishes failure to conform to gender norms, transitioning for some is a way of aligning (in a socially accepted way) their presentation with their identity. That’s very different from what you asserted.

Now, if you would like to argue that these transsexuals are active participants in their own oppression (which I’m happy to frame as supportive of patriarchal gender norms with all that that entails), I would agree. I would also agree that many trans individuals are as (or more) committed to traditional gender roles as most cisgendered heterosexuals.

Having said that, in my view nothing you wrote makes your framing of trans activism as seeking “political power” valid. Trans activists are no more seeking political power than are LGB activists. In my experience, they are seeking the same rights that most cisgendered individuals of the gender with which they identify have. Of course, there are limits. I’m not sure, for example, why you would expect trans activists to boycott the Masters Golf Tournament when, as far as I’m aware, there are no transmen who have been excluded from the Masters due to being trans but would otherwise have qualified for the tournament.

At any rate, I’ll leave it at that since you refuse to engage. Be well!

Best regards,
Shalsaran

My comments stand. I’m not going to engage you.

I’m unable to identify any instances of conflation in my response to your assertion that a broader context existed for Mary Daly’s work that 1) must be taken into account and 2) to some degree mitigates the transphobic nature of her writings.

What outright falsehood did my comment contain? I made three assertions:

1. A careful reading of her work does not support the contextualization you suggest.
2. Official recognition of GID (and the availability of SRS) is actually a good thing.
3. Being diagnosed with GID requires significantly more than being “not stereotypically feminine [or masculine].”

The first two are opinions while the third, to the best of my knowledge, is true. Again, if you have anything to offer that would contradict what I wrote, I would love to see it.

As to your accusation that my comment is an attempt to shift the burden of proof, I suppose I’ll just have to reiterate that I am aware of no scholarship that suggests that GID (or SRS) could be seen as a tool of the patriarchy as a “‘solution’ to women and men who don’t conform to patriarchal gender norms” at the time when Mary Daly’s transphobic writings were published (e.g. 1978). That, as a reminder, is the topic at hand, not whether there is currently a trend that is potentially dangerous to women, whether trans activists currently fail to acknowledge intersex issues in pursuit of political power, or any other related topic. Your discussion of recent developments is interesting but ultimately not applicable to the question of whether Mary Daly was writing in a “context of a patriarchial society that pushes GID and trans as the ‘solution’ to women and men who don’t conform to patriarchal gender norms.” Again, if you have something to offer on this point, I welcome open dialogue. Being accused of trolling is a bit off-putting but I promise not to hold it against you

Best regards,
Shalsaran

I own the place. It’s my blog. Ze was warned, and ze responded with an even longer and more patronizing comment, which if you’ve read the rules, is a sign that you either don’t understand or don’t respect the kind of establishment I maintain. It’s not for random commenters to disrupt conversations among people who actually know something and have expertise in an area. I came to the conclusion, after being nice and warning Rich, that ze was just here to pee in the pool.

Emma, you’re a longtime commenter who appears to know what you’re talking about. I disagree with you frequently, but you want to have an exchange (usually). I don’t know Shalsaran, but hir comment was a respectful disagreement with yours.

And, KC, yes, consistent with the trans movement and its medical backers, the vast majority of attention in the trans movement is paid to the needs, desires, and political posturings of MTF trans folk. See, for example, the repeated boycotting of the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival by Camp Trans but no analogous attention paid to the Master’s Golf Tournament played every year at all-male August golf club and broadcast on national television.

Also, I think Rich makes another good point: there’s plenty of essentialism in the trans movement today for feminists (including Daly) to fight against. In fact, it’s all about essentialism. The basic assumption of trans ideology is that people have inherent pre-social gender identities — which magically match up with societal gender roles — that are so determinative that phyical bodies must be surgically and hormonally altered in ordert that adequate social expression of that gender can be maintained. It’s essentialist in every aspect, including in pushing to have children “diagnosed” as GID at ever younger ages (like 2 years old, in one case).

The fact that Daly didn’t spit on the trans people she met doesn’t mean anything about her theories or her writing. It means something personally about her, how she chooses to interact with people, for example. It also says something that people can’t, apparently, find something Daly said troublesome without assuming she’s a raging bitch (“I was pleasantly surprised to find that Daly didn’t stab trans persons in the heart when she met them!”) But it says nothing about Daly’s work.

I don’t see why there’s such an overwhelming need to “reform” Daly with apocryphal stories that she was surprisingly nice or by hastily dismissing or explaining away bits of her writing that some people have labeled transphobic without any evidence that they’ve done any real research into her work, the context of her work, or trans ideology then or now, or even given any serious thought to any of those topics.

Your discussion of these issues, as well as Sungold’s actual research on Daly and transphobia were great contributions to this discussion–thanks for checking back in over here.

I’m all for people being whomever they want to be. But activist communities are diverse and heterogeneous. The chucking aside of Daly’s career and history because of some unfortunate anti-trans commentary in her earlier work was disturbing to me because of its ahistoricity and its refusal to acknowledge the importance of the larger battles she fought. As Emma and I both suggested, in different ways, there was resistance among feminists in the late 60s and early 70s to the particular kind of essentialism that was promulgated by early trans celebrities like Jan Morris.

Best regards,
Shalsaran

Respect is not ignoring an important feminist’s books and theories for years then saying you respect her after she has died. Respect, like love, is a living thing that proves itself in deed.

I saw it with Dworkin and now I’m seeing it with Daly where a third wave feminist blogger pats herself on the head for saying she has tolerance and respect when it is very obvious they don’t. It comes off like using Daly’s death to send a message about how generous and openminded they are, and it makes me think of all the radical feminists whose magnificent work they’ll continue to ignore until their deaths provide a brief public relations opportunity.