Archive for January, 2015
Thank you for this. While I do t agree with it all, you put your arguement in a respectful way (I mean not wanting to offend anyone).
Yes women and transwomen are different, we have different beginnings, histories and different issues. If you take as literal what some transwomen say about their experience, then of course you may feel upset or offended, but when we have the limited vocabulary that we currently do, how else can you describe what you’re feeling?
I am a transwoman (before someone outs me to your blog). I’m not going to introduce myself as Sarah the transwoman, anymore than I would introduce myself as Sarah the woman. When people see me, I hope they see me as a woman, and treat me as such. If they treat me otherwise, well it depends how they treat me, but if they treate badly, then I respond in an appropriate way, the same way is expect anyone to respond.
I can’t tell you that I “feel like a woman”, anymore than any woman can. I can tell you I feel better being percieved as a woman, living as a woman, and the rest that goes with it, but isn’t feminsm about being able to be who you are, without someone telling you what you can and can’t be?
First of all I want to make it clear that this is not a personal attack Caroline Criado-Perez. I just don’t agree with many aspects of her article:
‘Becoming a Woman: Trans Women and Male Violence’.
Though our views may vary, I understand that feminism encompasses differing views and strategies. I do however believe in healthy debate within feminism on subjects and a right to differ. I do understand her views were based on personal experience and respect that. However, as an influential writer, I also find they somewhat endorse an existing dangerous and damaging precedent.
As I’ve said before where ever you stand on ‘the trans issue’ within feminism, you cannot deny difference. Women and transwomen ARE different, whether in terms of socialisation, health, biology, social/political history and so on. The experience of being a woman is not something transwomen will ever know, nor vice versa. It is…
View original post 445 more words
…that thing they say is next to godliness, or to put it simply, soap and water.
New Statesman | The “return” of Page 3: the Sun revels in the chance to make women with opinions look stupid
Replies seem to have been disabled.
Sorry Kev, I missed your original post thanks to my iphone, but I kinda think you missed the point I was trying to make. How can The Sun or any newspaper calling itself that actually call itself a newspaper when it has near naked men and women posing in it? That’s not news, that’s titillation. You don’t see someone getting their kit off in between the news headlines and the weather on the BBC news channel (give SKY enough time and they will most likely). To be take seriously as a journalist, you have to first be a serious journalist.
I’ve been thinking about writing this post for the past week or so every since the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo. 3 gunmen claiming to represent 2 extremist Muslim groups, shot and killed police officers guarding the satirical magazine’s offices, and then proceeded to kill several of the staff inside (I think the figure was around 12 people killed). They said that they had avenged the prophet Muhammad, and other things that have typically been associated with Muslim extremist terrorists. What had the journalist and cartoonist of Charlie Hebdo done to warrant such violent actions from these people? They’d printed images of the Muslim prophet Mohammed and mocked the religion of Islam, the same way that they had mocked other religious figures and other religions in the past. Is that justification for brutally murdering over a dozen people? Absolutely not. Did the publishers of Charlie Hebdo have the right to print such things knowing they may cause offense, absolutely they did, did they deserve to die for possibly causing offense, of course the fuck not! Do I think they should have printed that kind of thing knowing it would cause offense and upset, no I don’t, but they still had the right to print it. Did the gunmen have the right to be offended by what Charlie Hebdo printed? Absolutely they did, and here’s a few suggestions to anyone who’s offended by similar things in similar ways. Pick up a pen and a piece of paper, you can get them from most stationary shops. Write a strongly worded letter saying how upset and offended you we’re by the article(s) and that you would like an apology and a promise that they will never do it. They’ll most likely ignore it or tell you to go fuck yourself, but you know what you can do then, write them another letter, and another letter and another, or you know what else you could do? GROW THE FUCK UP AND NOT LET THE WORDS OR DRAWINGS OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING UPSET YOU SO MUCH, IGNORE THEM, LIKE YOU’RE PARENTS WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU TO DO WITH THE SCHOOLYARD BULLY!
You know what seems really ironic to me? Charlie Hebdo was on it’s last financial legs before all this happened, they would have probably gone out of business sometime this year, but thanks to these fucktards trying to “punish” Charlie Hebdo, they’ve given them the biggest advert they could, and the current issue is being printed in the millions, where normally it would be in the 30,000 area. That’s called shooting yourself in the foot.
I’m gonna go find a lift to fart in now.
GM, obviously it’s upto you if you approve this post on your blog, but I’m reblogging with my 2 cents anyway.
It’s important that all members of this club feel comfortable with the sleeping arrangements. I don’t know why there’s the need to share beds though, sharing rooms I can understand. It’s not just a case of lumping or leaving it for those that don’t feel comfortable sharing with a trans woman, they’re feelings have to be taken into account too, but would we feel the same if they made similar comments about someone’s race, colour, or religious beliefs? I know personally from attending various student union events in the UK, that there are organisations like the YMCA that have dormitory accomodation and single / twin / bunk bed rooms, and I’m sure the situation must be similar where this group visits. Alternatively, camping out can be a fun activity, and once you’ve bought a tent and a sleeping bag, that’s pretty much the expensive bit over and done with (I’ve personally only went camping once with my ex, and we had 2 double inflatable mattresses, sleeping bags, led lighting and a 12 volt leisure battery to power other things like mobile phone chargers).
It’s a tricky situation, but it’s not without it’s options for a happy resolution.
I’ve not read CH, and I don’t think many outside of France will have either, but the way to deal with them if you are offended is not to buy their magazine, write them a strongly worded email or letter, ignore them. CH should be able to write whatever they want without fear of violent attack. The worst thing that should happen to anyone of the people at the magazine is they get a nasty letter written to them, or lose their job after a lawsuit. Being offended, does not give you the right to attack someone with a gun, with a bomb, with anything, there are no excuses. Do I think they should have published things they knew we’re likely to offend, maybe, should they have published images of Mohammed knowing that it would offend some Muslims, maybe not, do they deserve to die for publishing images of Mohammed? Absolutely not. The gunmen who carried out these attacks follow a twisted form of Islam that is highly rejected by most in the Muslim world, and we need to let them know that we support them (the non extreme Muslims that carry out these kinds of attacks).
Je Suis Charlie
It’s not a “but”. It should never be a “but”, it’s an “and”. “But” is a hinge that folds back on itself and disavows what came before. “I believe in free speech, but Charlie Hebdo published racist cartoons,” “terrorism is abhorrent, but Charlie Hebdo published racist cartoons”: the “but” establishes a relationship between the two clauses, and suggests that the latter statement cancels out the former. The speaker claims a principle, then gives it up in the next breath. “”I believe in free speech, and Charlie Hebdo published racist cartoons,” “terrorism is abhorrent, and Charlie Hebdo published racist cartoons”: that’s better. Now we have to take responsibility for the relationship between the propositions. Now we can talk.
I wasn’t going to write anything about Charlie Hebdo, and yet here I am. We have enough opinions, and I am going to write one more. It strikes me that I’ve made three…
View original post 915 more words
This is why bullying is never acceptable. This is why we should all treat others ( and be treated ) with love, care, affection, kindness and respect.
Rip to the girl that never had a chance.