"Waves" of Feminism

PART 3 OF 5

Dear Sisters,

There follows some more of my thoughts on the Jane book. The quoted
content, some of which describes the abuse of women, may cause distress and
some women may not wish to read on.

One thing that stands out for me about the book is that heterosexual
writers in it are describing problems in heterosexual relations with men.
Their complaints are similar to those raised in the 70s i.e. no pleasure
with men, feeling they have to let men penetrate them in order to please
them. However there is no feminist analysis here, i.e. how to get out or
change the men. The sex of male supremacy is assumed to be inevitable and
so the women simply seek ways to accommodate themselves to this.

For example Katinka Hooijer writes of having vulvodynia, her name for a
condition which causes great pain in penetration. She claims that
pornography was her salvation because she could use it, along with
masturbation, to be sexual without penetration. Her contribution is in
section 2 of the book, devoted to the sex industry. She says 'porn is
feminism' because it tells her none of her thoughts are bad. She says she
could not, however, give up penetration because:

'like it or not, heterosexuality revolves around penetration. Why? The
answer is simple: straight men want to stick their dicks in you. I endure
the discomfort for the same reasons other women do: because I want to get
something out of the deal. Maybe tonight he'll go down on me, or I'll at
least stimulate myself to clitoral orgasm while he thrusts in and out from
behind. Fantasies of rape cloud my head because rape is supposed to hurt,
so my psychic discord of wanting to fuck and hurting from fucking is sort
of resolved. Plus our egos tell us we can hold out longer than any pocket
pussy and not dry out either. There's nothing quite like the post ejaculate
compliment; the "ohmygod" effect is great for the psyche even if hard on
the pussy....Bad sex. Painful sex. Unwanted sex. Fact is, in a couplehood,
you can't get it on only when you want it. This is the compromise of
intimacy. Say no too many times and sexual frustration infiltrates other
areas of the relationship.
Why do we submit repeatedly to unwanted intercourse?
Why do we bump and grind till we're raw?
You tell me.'

This is all a long way from Shere Hite's wonderful book in the 70s when
feminism was about precisely not putting up with this, not finding ways to
endure it.

The third and final section of the book is called Our Inner Men and indeed
acquiring masculinity and dildos is offered here as a real solution to the
problems of heterosexual oppression discussed.
There is another piece from Lisa Johnson here in which she explains that
het sex is unsatisfying for her 'Because I am not able to come fast enough,
my sex partners often stop stimulating me before I come.' So she
masturbates to fantasies of being sexually abusive to women. 'A woman lies
beneath me, sucking my dick. I imagine telling her I won't come in her
mouth. And then doing it anyway.(Yikes.) .... I put my dick in her mouth
and she does not like it.... I want to do two things with this image at
once: to acknowledge the way U.S. culture shapes my fantasies into scenes
of dominating women, displacing my orgasm onto the male sex organ, and
simultaneously to guard my right to fantasize freely, to come at whatever
cost.... What to do when a movement for women's liberation constrains my
own personal freedom, when feminism conflicts with itself?'

The answer to unsatisfactory sexual relations with men seems to be to
imagine committing male violence against women.

The only contribution to the book which seems to relate to lesbians is
Liquid Fire. Female Ejaculation and Fast Feminism by Shannon Bell. This
starts with a pornographic description of Bell going to a sex club as a fem
'I am every butch's dream - since I've done heterosexuality I have no
problem crawling around on my knees sucking dick.' and 'I turn around,
offer her my crack from behind and say "Fuck me sir daddy and make it hard
and good." (Dildos figure in this story quite a bit). Bell then explains
that female ejaculation is important to what she calls 'fast feminism'. I
am not sure what is supposed to be fast in this feminism however.

'The ejaculating female is an event-scene ...of fast feminism. Fast
feminism: a strategically lived (global/local) feminism of the now, a
feminism that holds gender central, all the while realizing gender is
slippery; a feminism that privileges the "masculine" female body, performed
as fem or butch or any combination in between.... Fast feminism is informed
by postmodernism...'

So it looks as if this new sexy, fast feminism is about appropriating
female 'masculinity' as in the title of Judith Halberstam's book (Female
Maculinity) i.e. it is a form of social climbing by imitating or acquiring
the attributes of the class above you. Male power cannot be removed so
women must try to be men. This is mostly to be done by women, lesbian and
heterosexual, either fantasising or buying and wielding penis-shaped
dildos. The cover of Jane Sexes it Up has repeat images of a woman wearing
nothing but brief knickers and inside you see she has a dildo/penis attached.

There are many problems with the idea that getting female masculinity and
doing dildo sex is progressive or any kind of feminism. One is that many
feminists consider that masculinity, as the behaviour of male dominance,
needs to be abolished rather than appropriated by women. Becoming male is
not what feminism used to be about, it used to be about getting rid of
precisely the male privilege, such as being violent to women, that women in
the Jane volume now want for themselves. Another is that for masculinity to
continue to exist whether for men or the women who now demand it, the vast
majority of women are condemned to 'femininity' the behaviour of female
subordination. Masculinity only has meaning in relation to femininity and
cannot exist on its own. Halberstam makes quite clear in her book that she
hates femininity and says how terrible it is that girls are relegated to
it, suggesting that perhaps it should just be seen as a sex toy.
Unfortunately masculinity and femininity are not just sex toys but the
behaviours that arise from and maintain real, material male dominance.

One more aspect of the Jane book that is disturbing is that the Bell piece
is the only real mention of lesbianism so this makes the book most
unsuitable for students. I consider that teachers of women's studies or
feminist subjects of any kind do have a responsibility to place before
students positive material that will enable them to make the choice to be
lesbians or make them feel more confident as lesbians, material that will
enrich their lives about lesbian philosophy and ethics and loving women as
a political practice of resistance. A book which portrays lesbianism as sm
practice, ejaculation and dildos is anti-lesbian. There is nothing here but
hostile stereotypes of lesbians such as men's porn and sexology have long
provided. There is nothing about how a whole lesbian life may be led in
confidence and pride and without a feeling of deficiency. Lesbians are not
lacking and do not need penises. Why is this a hard argument to make in
2002? How have we lost the knowledge that downgrading the importance of
penises and showing that women can live very happily without them is
revolutionary, not making penis substitutes and creating a sexual practice
around this.

Sheila J.

Hello,
I wrote a short piece in the first section of the book, "The Sexual Girl
Within:  Breaking the Feminist Silence on Desiring Girlhoods," that's very
much about early lesbian experience.  While the piece deals with what it
means for girls to struggle variously with desire, with pop culture (Playboy
mags in the house, Get Smart) and traits girls aren't supposed to have, like
cruelty, and not exclusively on lesbian sexual experience, it's organized
around positive and early lesbian desire and what's at stake in framing
early sexual experience in particular ways that deny girls agency, or in
grouping all girls together in a homogenous lump (girls can't be
lesbians/only women are sexual):

***

"And the hand, there, on her small thigh - is it always, large, male,
frightening?  What happens if we allow that sometimes - just sometimes
- it's another small hand, sometimes another girl-hand, desiring,
tentative, fierce, exploring. What do we call her if she spreads her
legs just a little wider?"  ...  
"The playgrounds I inhabited were
female-run spaces, my memories filled with sexual, laughing girls.
Girls were powerful.  Often cruel. They were good kissers.  Boys were
timid; lacked imagination.  When they kissed, they could never make up
a story and whisper it to you . . .  their tongues were too rigid,
their lips scared, and they'd push saliva into your mouth.  No, the
slow practised, hours-long kissing with the girls was so much better.
In childhood I learned that girls were expert everything.  This isn't
everyone's story, of course, but I'm not the only one, I know, whose
girlhood is populated by great sexual experimenters . . .  Risktakers
. . .  kissing girl gangs.  Sometimes I stop, very still and wonder -
why does no one talk about this girlhood I remember?  And what do
those of us with these memories of girlhood carry with us into our
feminism?"  ...  
"Sabrina knows how to butterfly kiss.  She flutters
her eyelashes against the side of my face, my shoulders, my nipples.
She turns on the flashlight.  "Turn it OFF!"  She butterflies across
my stomach ("if you laugh, I'll kill you!") and between my legs.  She
takes her time.  She's a butterfly expert.  Shhh.  We don't want
anyone to come in.  I never even knew she had eyelashes before now.  I
count in my head so I don't make a sound.  Sabrina winds a path across
me and through me with eyelashes and small lips. I count up to eight
hundred and nine before she stops.  Sometimes even now at night,
alone, I begin to count - eight hundred and nine, eight hundred and
ten . . .  And she's there."  ...  
Weren't there dangers?  "Yes,
of course," I say.  Then, gently, "but let's not forget the
kissing that came before".  After all, when people ask "can it
ever be different?" it was feminism that taught me the value for
girls and for feminisms of answering: "for me, it was."

***

In many ways the piece is also about the loss of this early desire and this
sense of sexual possibility, the loss of these girl-run spaces and the power
of revisiting them. I see this work as being very much about resistance.

best,
Caitlin

Dr. Caitlin Fisher
Assistant Professor
Fine Arts Cultural Studies
York University
4700 Keele Street
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M3J 1P3

voice: 416-736-2100 Ext.20744
fax: 416-650-8034
www.yorku.ca/caitlin/

>S. Jeffreys wrote:
>So it looks as if this new sexy, fast feminism is about appropriating
>female 'masculinity' as in the title of Judith Halberstam's book (Female
>Maculinity) i.e. it is a form of social climbing by imitating or acquiring
>the attributes of the class above you. Male power cannot be removed so
>women must try to be men. This is mostly to be done by women, lesbian and
>heterosexual, either fantasising or buying and wielding penis-shaped
>dildos.

Actually, women dont exist. That is what de Beauvoir, Wittig, etc. etc.
etc. taught me. Maculinity and femininity are not the essential and
exclusive domain of one clearly delineated sex or the other (feminism also
taught me this). Gender is a construct (again, thank you feminism). Women
should not try to be either "women" or "feminine" as this is merely an
oppressive stereotype (Women's Studies 101).

Hence, women can be masculine. They can strap on, play hard, be soft --
they can do anything a man AND a woman can do (as can men, transsexuals,
intersex people, drag kings/queens...). If women do not cross the gender
boundary how are they supposed to make an intervention in the construction
of masculinity and femininity? Should we somehow transcend gender binaries
to some gender neutral place? What is that place? In the past that place
has been figured as the domain of "womyn" (earth mother, peace-bearer,
nurturer, etc.) but this figure has not eliminated gender binaries, and in
fact has kept them in place quite nicely (women are from Venus, men are
from Mars).

So, if Third Wave feminists are opting for a different strategy, why knock
it before we see what it produces? The old gender-binary strategy of
feminism gave these people the analysis to be able to reach Judith
Halberstam's book -- whether you recognize the influence of Second Wave
there or not. It is a tribute to Second Wave that Third Wave feminists have
not just become feminist clones, but are thinking out new strategies,
remedies, interventions. Because these people dont look recognizably
feminist, they are being branded as the enemy (male supremist) but I would
submit that it is exactly here -- in this different look and approach --
that we may find Third Wave, not in generational difference, although that
may also come into play. As someone who understands the crystal clear,
articulate, and transparent theories of feminism I recognize that I
actually live in the messy contradictions of capitalism, gender, race,
class, ability... and I welcome Third Wave's conversational approach as to
how to navigate this chaos. At the level of theory I know the type of life
I should live, but at the level of daily reality I want to talk to the
woman who experiences heterosexual sex as sometimes exhilarating and
sometimes a duty, imposition, or worse. Where feminism becomes reduced to a
series of interdictions and not a meeting between people trying to live
their messy lives, there have we lost the sense of feminism as a support
system in the larger struggle for liberation.

peace,
Linda Wayne
wayne005    AT    tc.umn.edu

Re: Mixing the Third and Second Wave

  I like Dr. Jeffrey's comments, except that at the end she seems to
indicate there is only one way to be a feminist lesbian.  I agree there
needs to be more to lesbian existence than being a Macho Slut.  But I don't
criticize what someone else thinks is hot.

  We were discussing at the BECAUSE sexuality conference in Milwaukee last
month that what the Third Wave lacks is cogent political theory to go with
its counter-cultural aspects.  It was relevant that the oldest of us in the
workshop were in our middle and late 30's--we grew up during Reagan, not
Clinton.*  I think because of our demographics, the fact that we were (and
are) numerically outnumbered by Baby Boomers, we either adopted Second Wave
beliefs** whole, or we didn't have a cogent politics.  The Third Wave,
however, seems to have gone to the other extreme--ignoring the past.
  Anyway, unless people think the way to enrich the feminism of our younger
sisters (and brothers) is to criticize and berate them, I think we should
come up with ideas that connect the two waves to that they aren't just two
groups talking past each other.  I think Amy and Jennifer hit the point in
"Manifesta" when they say that Gen-X feminists say Second Wavers ignore them
and Second Wavers say that Gen-Xers won't listen to them.  I'd like to hear
some ideas***--I suggest it start with those of us born in the 1960's, those
with connections to both generations.

Hannah Miyamoto
UW-Green Bay
Green Bay, Wisconsin
hsmiyamoto    AT    msn.com
http://www.hannahmiyamoto.com

* I know that Dr. Jeffreys is an Australian, while I'm writing from a very
American (not even North American) perspective.  Some of this applies
internationally, but I'm not sure how much.

** Except for New Wave, we (unlike corporations that created, e.g., M.
Jackson) didn't develop much of a culture either.  Lots of our bands were
holdovers from the '70's and even '60s, like the Who and the Grateful Dead.
Grunge/Alternative, starting in 1991, was the bellwether of Gen X.

*** Not necessarily here.  After examining the alternatives, we at the
Milwaukee workshop formed an e-mail list community on yahoogroups.com to
develop ideas, ThirdWaveFeministTheory    AT    yahoogroups.com.  To subscribe, send
an e-mail to ThirdWaveFeministTheory-subscribe    AT    yahoogroups.com.

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, and so Feminists must be from Pluto?
And Pluto isn't really a planet but an illusion...

At 12:23 04/06/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Linda Wayne wrote:
>
>Actually, women don't exist. That is what de Beauvoir, Wittig, etc. etc.
>etc. taught me. Maculinity and femininity are not the essential and
>exclusive domain of one clearly delineated sex or the other (feminism also
>taught me this). Gender is a construct (again, thank you feminism). Women
>should not try to be either "women" or "feminine" as this is merely an
>oppressive stereotype (Women's Studies 101).

Wow, wow, wow! Talk about oversimplification. If you take women out of a
political context, out of the recognition that power has resided and been
controlled exclusively by male INSTITUTIONS then you can paint this in such
narrow terms.

Women still earn 79 cents to every dollar a man earns. The universities
still have--at best--about a 70-30 split between male and female tenured
faculty?  The overwhelming number of people in part-time, no health
insurance jobs are women?  That in the universities, most of the adjunct
faculty--overworked, underpaid, no-status instructors are women? Is there
an essential quality that women have that makes them do this to themselves?

Gender isn't just about sex. And it isn't about saying outrageous things
just to get a rise out of people.
Why does pushing "Third Wave" thinking involve trashing those who came
before?  It is about positionality, status, institutions, power, and justice.

As for "crystal clear, articulate, and transparent theories of feminism"
what about the serious and opposite theories of Catherine MacKinnon vs. Nan
Hunt or Pat Califia? What about the League of Women Voters versus NOW?
(I can give you dozens of examples but we all know the deep divisions in
the theory and practice of feminism.)


It isn't about getting to a "gender neutral place." It's about creating a
society where being a man won't mean that you  have the automatic
advantage, or being a woman doesn't mean that you are instantly regarded as
second class. The distinction is that in getting to a "gender neutral
place," you are neutering individuals, whereas changing society's standards
so that people aren't discriminated against--or have are given an instant
bias in their favor before abilities, etc. can be assessed. Women's studies
is a discipline that grew out of an activism that dealt precisely "in the
messy contradictions of capitalism, gender, race,class, ability..."
What do you think socialist feminists have been doing? Or those who are
working to end trafficking in women? Or those who worked in the welfare
rights movement? Or in all the various people of color movements?

I hope that the books that are being written about the Third Wave are
written by people who have a broad and deep undertstanding of feminism
because if they aren't, then they will waste a lot of time reinventing the
wheel.


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Rosa Maria Pegueros, J.D., Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Women's Studies Program &       Washburn Hall, 217C
Department of History           E-mail:
University of Rhode Island      <rpe2836u    AT    postoffice.uri.edu>
80 Upper College Road, Suite 3  Telephone: (401) 874-4092
Kingston, RI 02881                    Fax: (401) 874-2595
<http://www.uri.edu/personal/rpe2836u/>
<http://nick.uri.edu/artsci/wms/pegueros.htm>

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple.  Modern
life would be very tedious if it were either, and
modern literature a complete impossibility."
                              --Oscar Wilde

What I so often find missing from these discussions is any consideration of
misogyny, cultural and individual.  If women don't exist, who/what do
misogynists hate?  Are women (or whatever) who "strap one on" only "crossing
the gender bindary," or are they rejecting/loathing the feminine, both as
constructed and as present in themselves?  Usually homophobia gets missed as
well:  what do homophobes hate in gay men?  If it isn't the feminine, what?
And when lesbians want to be "boys" and (is it?) "Gay Daddies," what is it
that they are NOT being?  I think that's got to be women: the Lacanian
"lack," she who does not possess the phallus or the Word of the Father, the
empty space that patricarchal misogyny casts the feminine to be--but that it
isn't in women's lived experience.

(Yeah, I know, selves don't exist either.  Neither, I suppose, do buildings,
since they were constructed and each of them is in some senses unique:  the
Empire State Building is not my house, and calling them both buildings
obscures their differences, so I guess we have to get rid of that concept
(and every other one, too)--otherwise, buildings can never change, they will
just continue to be built just like they are today, until we recognize that
calling them all "buildings" stabilizes their construction as it is now?!?!
Does that really make sense to anyone?)

"Masculine" isn't just an equal and neutral construction that benignly
exists alongside "feminine"--as James Dobson and all the other conservative
idiots want us to believe.  Remember POWER?  And sure, there's power in the
masculine, all right--just as there is power in the "the white" and "the
rich" and "the Western."  So, let's just take them all onto/into
ourselves--and that will DESTABILIZE them?  Give me a break, please!

I live in Colorado, where a transsexual who is doing everything possible to
pass as the gender that is not congruent with her or his biological sex
(yes, I know all about all the difficulties inherent in the sex/gender
thing--five sexes, and all that other stuff--sex is as socially constructed
as gender--got it)--but who has NOT had any sort of "sex reassignment"
surgery--can get a driver's license that says they are the sex they are
performing (i.e., they can get a legal, State-sanctioned sex reassignment).
Why do you suppose the patriarchal, conservative, Republican-controlled,
State is willing to do that--enabling transsexuals to marry (I guess) and
whatever--to legally "be" the other gender?  While it is not willing to let
little old (imperfectly) feminine-appearing me do the same and marry my
partner of 26 years? (Not that we necessarily would--it's just an example.)
Could it be because the TRANSSEXUAL is destabilizing the institution of
gender?  I don't think so.  What this State-sanction indicates is what is
obvious: crossing gender lines only in order to perform the same only dreary
bullshit in the same old dreary guise destabilizes nothing.  I swear, I
might even call it "bourgeois decadent," it that pharase hadn't been so
misunderstood and misused by over the years.

(Oh, and this isn't about the book.  I haven't read it, but I have ordered
it.)

In sisterhood and struggle,

Eileen Bresnahan
Colorado College

At 12:23 PM 6/4/02, Eileen Bresnahan wrote:

>What I so often find missing from these discussions is any consideration of
>misogyny, cultural and individual.  If women don't exist, who/what do
>misogynists hate?

Do you think that 3rd Wave feminists should read what feminists of the past
have written? I do. And in fact I think that you should too, because in
fact it is early radical feminism that first states that "woman" does not
exist. Remember the old de Beauvior quote, "woman is made, not born"? Shall
I return to Women's Studies 101 and reiterate that woman is a construct
within an inequitable androcentric system (virgin, whore, mother, etc.)?
This is pretty basic. The construct is misogynistic to the hilt.
Misogynists hate the figure of woman that they themselves have created
(weak, dependent, instinctual, etc.). Who do you think they hate? Why is
constructedness so hard to understand by some feminists today when most of
it was developed by feminists?

>(Yeah, I know, selves don't exist either.  Neither, I suppose, do buildings

This is a wonderful example of the way that constructedness is nonetheless
real -- just as is the constructedness of "woman" in an androcentric
socio-economic system. Just because a building is constructed doesn't mean
that we cant sleep, work, or play in it. It doesn't mean that some aren't
prized while others are derided. It doesn't mean that if a constructed
building fell on us we would not be crushed. At the same time since it is a
construct its appearance, etc. has changed over time. So too with "woman."
What is at stake here is not whether "woman" is a construct, for this
argument has been made before me and by much more brilliant and celebrated
feminists than me. What is at stake is the OLD argument of whether you want
to take the track that "woman" and "man" should be made/reconstructed as
equitable, or whether these categories should be eliminated altogether. I
hear 3rd Wave feminists making the latter argument and you making the
former. Is this a difference between 2nd and 3rd Wave? It would be weird to
paint it that way since the latter argument came out of 2nd Wave.

>Why do you suppose the patriarchal, conservative, Republican-controlled,
>State is willing to do that--enabling transsexuals to marry (I guess) and
>whatever--to legally "be" the other gender?  While it is not willing to let
>little old (imperfectly) feminine-appearing me do the same and marry my
>partner of 26 years?

Please, why are you complaining instead of joining forces and working
together to challenge this Republican government? In Minnesota transpeople
and feminists, lesbians, and others work more closely (although greater
coalition is still needed) and it benefits us all. Resist the "divide and
conquer" strategies of the heteronormative androcentric hegemony and figure
out how you can ride out the changes transpeople are able to effect for the
good of all oppressed people.  This is something transpeople can give to
you -- but you in turn can pioneer resistance to violence for them, as
feminists have developed incredibly in this area since the start of the
movement. Killing a transperson is not considered a hate crime in almost
every state, and many times these murders are complicated by race class
difference as well. What can you do to change this heinous situation?
Coalition is our strength.

peace,
Linda Wayne
wayne005    AT    tc.umn.edu

** Please include your email address so that people can reply privately!**

Eileen writes:

>[clip]
>I live in Colorado, where a transsexual who is doing everything possible to
>pass as the gender that is not congruent with her or his biological sex
>(yes, I know all about all the difficulties inherent in the sex/gender
>thing--five sexes, and all that other stuff--sex is as socially constructed
>as gender--got it)--but who has NOT had any sort of "sex reassignment"
>surgery--can get a driver's license that says they are the sex they are
>performing (i.e., they can get a legal, State-sanctioned sex reassignment).
>Why do you suppose the patriarchal, conservative, Republican-controlled,
>State is willing to do that--enabling transsexuals to marry (I guess) and
>whatever--to legally "be" the other gender?  While it is not willing to let
>little old (imperfectly) feminine-appearing me do the same and marry my
>partner of 26 years? (Not that we necessarily would--it's just an example.)
>[clip]

Having recently worked with at least two people who went through
reassignment after a diagnosis of GID (what used to be listed in
the DSM as 'transsexualism'), I feel Eileen might have
misunderstood something important.

As far as I know, driving licences and other documentation given
to people before surgery are only temporary and only given to
people medically certified as undergoing the reassignment
process.  Part of that process, required by the international
standards of care, is at least a year (sometimes 2) spent living
in the target sex role before reassignment can be completed.  The
documentation is only intended to help protect them from
discrimination, assault, etc. during that time.  It cannot
legally be used for marriage, and if they decide not to complete
reassignment, the documentation goes away again.

Hope that clarifies.

in Sisterhood,
Margaret

--
Margaret Tarbet / oneko    AT    mindspring.com
--------------------------------------
Il felino pi· piccolo F un capolavoro.
--Leonardo da Vinci

On 06/04/02 12:23 pm, "Eileen Bresnahan" <EBresnahan    AT    COLORADOCOLLEGE.EDU>
wrote:
> I live in Colorado, where a transsexual who is doing everything possible
> to pass as the gender that is not congruent with her or his biological
> sex (yes, I know all about all the difficulties inherent in the sex/gender
> thing--five sexes, and all that other stuff--sex is as socially constructed
> as gender--got it)--but who has NOT had any sort of "sex reassignment"
> surgery--can get a driver's license that says they are the sex they are
> performing
[snip]
> What this State-sanction indicates is what is obvious: crossing gender
> lines only in order to perform the same only dreary bullshit in the
> same old dreary guise destabilizes nothing.

State of Colorado does not protect trans people from the
discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation, nor
does it have hate crimes legislation that specifically targets
bias-motivated crimes committed against trans people. In your very
state, Fred Martinez Jr., a transgender- and gay-identified Dineh
Two Spirit youth, was brutally murdered less than a year ago - and
yet, the legislature once again voted down the hate crimes bill. To
suggest that trans people's rights are sanctioned by the State of
Colorado is a wild mischaracterization.

> Why do you suppose the patriarchal, conservative, Republican-controlled,
> State is willing to do that--enabling transsexuals to marry (I guess) and
> whatever--to legally "be" the other gender? While it is not willing to let
> little old (imperfectly) feminine-appearing me do the same and marry my
> partner of 26 years?

The assumption that all transsexuals are heterosexual (or that the
potential partners of transsexual people are not transsexual) is
incorrect, heterosexist, and cissexist (that is, anti-transsexual).

By the way, please stop using "five sexes" as the example to
illustrate the constructedness of sex/gender categories; Anne
Fausto-Sterling, who proposed it in 1993, has already withdrew
it (see _Sexing the Body_, p.110). I can send you a copy of my paper,
"From Social Construction to Social Justice: Transforming How We
Teach About Intersexuality" (co-authored by Lisa Weasel, the Assist.
Prof. of Biology at Portland State University), if you like, which
discussing the harms of using "five sexes" theory in this way.


Emi Koyama <emi    AT    eminism.org>

--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.