Photos of transgendered people in Iran

[Queercommie Girl]

http://www.viiphoto.com/detailStory.php?news_id=409

Although I oppose theocracy of all forms, and recognise a lot of the reactionary features of the Iranian regime, such as homophobia and sexism, Iran does have a relatively progressive policy on transgenderism. It offered free medical care for all trans people before the UK and many other European countries did. And although in Iran trans-women are looked down upon like all women in general, actual murder of trans people (male or female) is virtually unheard of, unlike in the US for instance.

Although I always like to criticise Abrahamic religions like Christianity and Islam for their opposition and sometimes brutality towards queer people, as Dialectics teaches us things are never so absolute and black-and-white. Are Chinese religions like Confucianism and Buddhism always more gay and trans friendly compared with the Abrahamic faiths? Both yes and no. It's true that Confucian Chinese would almost never actually murder queer people, unlike Muslims and Christians, but then almost no Confucian would actually support queer people either. However, among Christians there is the pro-queer Liberation Theology, and among Muslims Iran is very pro-transgenderism.

Just like the Chinese state itself. China has never been as homophobic as Russia and Eastern Europe was. Part of the reason is indeed cultural. Maoism was not as homophobic as Stalinism. China today is not as homophobic as the Russian Federation. The official stance of the ruling CCP today on LGBT rights is one of absolute neutrality (a typical Han Chinese position to take!), based on the so-called Three No's: "No Opposition, No Promotion, No Support".

Had my parents being Christian or Muslim it might actually be easier for them to accept me as being queer.

Just posting these photos for interest.

[Rafiq]

Don't be fooled. The Iranian regime only endorses transgenderism to obliterate homosexuality.

They aren't 'progressive' at all on the issue. They don't want Homosexuals to exist, so they basically force them to get a sex change.. or face extreme discrimination or even death.

Some gay people in Iran don't even want a sex change yet they have to do I anyone.

If your parents were Christian or Muslim... They might have not accept you at all. From my understanding at least.

The Iranian state is in no way shape or form pro queer. They see it like this:

"Well, instead of murdering gay people and getting a bad reputation around the world, let's just make them normal by changing their sex".

[Queercommie Girl]

Don't be fooled. The Iranian regime only endorses transgenderism to obliterate homosexuality.

They aren't 'progressive' at all on the issue. They don't want Homosexuals to exist, so they basically force them to get a sex change.. or face extreme discrimination or even death.

Some gay people in Iran don't even want a sex change yet they have to do I anyone.

If your parents were Christian or Muslim... They might have not accept you at all. From my understanding at least.

The Iranian state is in no way shape or form pro queer. They see it like this:

"Well, instead of murdering gay people and getting a bad reputation around the world, let's just make them normal by changing their sex".

That's certainly true, of course.

But there are many genuinely transgendered people too.

And in the capitalist West you have things the other way around sometimes, you have LGB transphobia. (E.g. by the British bourgeois feminist Julie Bindel) Some gays and lesbians in the West actually think transgenderism isn't real, that they are just closet gays or lesbians. Isn't this just as bad as claiming all gays are just transgendered people?

My girlfriend comes from a Christian family. Her sister is a Christian fundamentalist who sometimes speaks in tongues. Yet her family has largely accepted her transgendered status. My family probably never will.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's not "progressive" if you don't presuppose that transgendered people are always "repressed" in traditional societies. India and Pakistan, and I think Iran and Turkey too, all had open traditions of practicing transexuals. It happened to not be criticized in the religious texts, so they were ostracized but not banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)

Mind you, those institutions were and still are based on ancient and diverse 3,000 year old religious codes, and I don't know how different it is in the Islamic world. But in India, it was illegal to be gay until very recently, but the Hijras have always been a part of the culture.

I remember when I studied in Delhi they would flirt with you, and Indian men would give them money to be left alone. Transgender is a deeply rooted part of the culture there, as we can see from the diverse mythology relating to them.

[Queercommie Girl]

Traditional Hindu culture may be tolerant of trans people to some extent, true. I know that in Buddhist countries like Thailand, there is a long tradition of "3rd sex" people.

However, they were still treated like social outcasts to some extent. But perhaps not as bad as in East Asian Confucian societies, where they would be (except if they come from an elitist background, very successful, or very rich) almost completely treated as social outcasts, or Christian and Islamic societies, where they might indeed face murder.

Islam generally speaking is not trans-friendly. You can't assume Islam is like Hinduism and Buddhism on this issue. Iran is a rather special case. Iranian Islam is a particular kind of Islam.

And in Iran today, trans people do not really face any ostracisation either, so it's even better than in Hindu and Buddhist culture. But as I said, this is perculiar to Iran, and not an universal feature of Islam.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

However, they were still treated like social outcasts to some extent.

That's certainly true. They were always *apart*. The various traditions that make up "Hinduism", for all of their openness and spiritual egalitarianism, were more than happy to discriminate and "set people aside" based on certain ritual or categorical assumptions. These people were allowed, and had some freedoms, but always had to follow additional rules (and this is still the case in many places). On the other hand, there were also always people within that tradition building common devotional movements and social bonds between different groups of people.

I know Islam is quite different overall, but Pakistani Islam is influenced heavily by Indian religion. Iran is Shiite and if I remember correctly their tolerance to trans gender comes from unique features of that tradition (as you say, Iran is different). Turks too came from Central Asia, and always seemed to have some pretty loose social controls, at least compared to the Arab world, but I may be wrong in that too.

Also Sufi Islam, while quite often fundamentalist and violent too, was in many cases much more open to difference. From what ive read sufism is popular in pakistan and turkey and kurdish areas, but not so much in the arab world.

What did the Taoist tradition argue about homosexuality and transgender? I always thought Lao Tzu was incredibly radical in his writing, but I don't know much about actual Taoism in practice.

[TC]

Supporting transgender surgeries in a social context where it is understood as part of being gay, and being gay constitutes a 'sin' - is progressive - since it constitutes part of the fight against patriarchal gender relations and homophobia (homophobia itself being a symptom of patriarchal relations).

But in a social context like Iran's, where transgenderism is understood in a different social context, there is nothing progressive about the regimes support for it - it is if anything, a way of consolidating strict gender roles. It serves as a way of eliminating deviation from normal gender roles by normalizing people with atypical gender presentations by making them typical members of the opposite gender. By doing so they can keep gender roles crystalised and rigid, they eliminate the threat to the patriarchal social order posed by people who reject gender roles.

A biological woman who doesn't want to submit to the islamic republic's idea of how a woman should behave can be neutralized as a social threat if made into a totally convincing looking man - and if there is a death penalty for homosexuality (as there is) - its easy to imagine how this can actually be part of a system for consolidating and enhancing patriarchal oppression.

In contrast the Cuban governments support of transgender people is genuinely progressive because they do it in a context where they also support gay people and working to dismantle patriarchal gender relations rather than consolidate them - so it is just part of the plurality of human sexuality rather than a way of suppressing the contradictions of patriarchy.

[coda]

<<Supporting transgender surgeries in a social context where it is understood as part of being gay, and being gay constitutes a 'sin' - is progressive - since it constitutes part of the fight against patriarchal gender relations and homophobia (homophobia itself being a symptom of patriarchal relations).>>

I don't think it is progressive to undergo a gender change for the sole purpose of falling under the criteria of being half of a legal heterosexual couple. (is that what you're saying there?) I would hope people fight in their same-sexness, birth gender for their personal rights. Radical gender surgery should be legal and available for all people who feel uncomfortable and not in the right body ---rather then not being able to be with the person they want to be with.

Glad to see your posts TC. Your presence always lifts the theoretical level of the board. :)

[TC]

I don't think it is progressive to undergo a gender change for the sole purpose of falling under the criteria of being half of a legal heterosexual couple. (is that what you're saying there?) I would hope people fight in their same-sexness, birth gender for their personal rights. Radical gender surgery should be legal and available for all people who feel uncomfortable and not in the right body ---rather then not being able to be with the person they want to be with.

I should clarify then - my comments about what was and what wasn't progressive referred to the attitude and policies of the governments alone, and not to the decisions and actions of the individual transgender and/or gay people. I would not pass judgment on whether someone's decision to switch genders was a "progressive" act or not - it is a personal act and one that they should decide on based on their own circumstances and needs. Frankly, avoiding execution is probably a pretty good reason to do something that dramatic - in fact its hard to think of a better reason.

I would also hope that people fight for their right to have same-sex relationships, but I would never insist that they do so if alternatives seem viable to them, especially when they would risk their life in doing so: ultimately it is their life to lead and no one should be expected to sacrifice themselves for the interests they are supposed to have in common with others. That makes little sense to me.

I also think the demand that gay people in Iran "stay to fight" so to speak, made by people who will never have to make that choice or be subjected to that risk, comes from a position of unrecognized privilege that we need to problematize.

I have not put myself in fear of my life for a political cause so it would be hypocritical for me to ask that of others, and prejudicial of me to ask it of others based on their demographic characteristics.




Glad to see your posts TC. Your presence always lifts the theoretical level of the board. :)
Thanks!

[Queercommie Girl]

Supporting transgender surgeries in a social context where it is understood as part of being gay, and being gay constitutes a 'sin' - is progressive - since it constitutes part of the fight against patriarchal gender relations and homophobia (homophobia itself being a symptom of patriarchal relations).


Transgenderism is not "part of being gay", it's a different issue altogether.

Fact is, even in a hypothetical society where no patriarchy, sexism and homophobia exist at all, some people might still wish to change their sex physically.

Trans rights is not just a sub-category of gay rights. It has an independent significance of its own.

Many trans people simply wish to be completely treated as a member of their desired gender, 100%, and do not wish to even mention their "queer" status at all, if possible.

Of course, many trans people are also homosexual or bisexual, but that's a completely different issue altogether.



But in a social context like Iran's, where transgenderism is understood in a different social context, there is nothing progressive about the regimes support for it - it is if anything, a way of consolidating strict gender roles. It serves as a way of eliminating deviation from normal gender roles by normalizing people with atypical gender presentations by making them typical members of the opposite gender. By doing so they can keep gender roles crystalised and rigid, they eliminate the threat to the patriarchal social order posed by people who reject gender roles.
For all of Iran's problems with sexism and homophobia, it does not make transgenderism in Iran itself non-progressive. Fact is, Iran had free medical care for trans people before most states in the European Union, as yes Cuba too, did.

Also, I believe in cultural democracy. There is no such thing as the "correct culture" in a metaphysical sense. Traditional gender norms are not necessarily wrong intrinsically, what is wrong is the cultural chauvinist attitude of people in traditional societies that force everyone into the same gender mold.

Suppose some people actually wish to follow more traditional gender roles, is it not their fundamental cultural right to do so, as long as they don't impose it on other people?

Politically I reject anarchism, because I believe in Leninist democratic centralism. But culturally I am indeed quite anarchistic and radical democratic. I believe the socialist state has no business in "evangelising" a particular kind of "culture".

My ideal is a bit like the ancient Chinese bureaucratic state - politically it was very centralised, but culturally it allowed dozens of different religions to flourish as long as they don't interfere with politics; In contrast to the Dark Ages in Medieval Europe, where there is no real "state" at all, but culture and thought was rigidly controlled by the reactionary orthodox Roman Catholic Church.

I am a political Leninist but cultural anarchist.

I am a strong believer and supporter of cultural internationalism and cultural pluralism, a very strong believer and supporter.



A biological woman who doesn't want to submit to the islamic republic's idea of how a woman should behave can be neutralized as a social threat if made into a totally convincing looking man - and if there is a death penalty for homosexuality (as there is) - its easy to imagine how this can actually be part of a system for consolidating and enhancing patriarchal oppression.
What if I'm a trans-woman who actually wants to be a housewife?

(Personally I don't, I'm just purely being hypothetical here)



In contrast the Cuban governments support of transgender people is genuinely progressive because they do it in a context where they also support gay people and working to dismantle patriarchal gender relations rather than consolidate them - so it is just part of the plurality of human sexuality rather than a way of suppressing the contradictions of patriarchy.Cuba has some progressive policies on transgenderism, of course.

However, it is true that in many Western capitalist states, LGB transphobia does exist, and it is an issue that needs to be actually addressed rather than ignored.

[Queercommie Girl]

Frankly, avoiding execution is probably a pretty good reason to do something that dramatic - in fact its hard to think of a better reason.


A better reason is that some people really are transgendered, and their brain sex does not fit with their physical sex.

Sorry, but you sound like changing sex is something that is too "dramatic".

I do not advocate gay people who are not transgendered to change sex in principle, but you don't seem to realise that some people are just trans, which actually has nothing to do with their sexuality.

[red cat]

It's not "progressive" if you don't presuppose that transgendered people are always "repressed" in traditional societies. India and Pakistan, and I think Iran and Turkey too, all had open traditions of practicing transexuals. It happened to not be criticized in the religious texts, so they were ostracized but not banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_%28South_Asia))

Mind you, those institutions were and still are based on ancient and diverse 3,000 year old religious codes, and I don't know how different it is in the Islamic world. But in India, it was illegal to be gay until very recently, but the Hijras have always been a part of the culture.

I remember when I studied in Delhi they would flirt with you, and Indian men would give them money to be left alone. Transgender is a deeply rooted part of the culture there, as we can see from the diverse mythology relating to them.


Are you sure of this ? First of all, hermaphrodites and transexuals are not the same. Secondly, in such matters Indian society has been one of the most conservative ones ever. And lastly, hermaphrodites have always been so hated that they were either killed when they were born, or given to the hermaphrodite community practically isolated from the society. They have been mentioned in some texts to be punished by the gods. So they were always hated.

[Queercommie Girl]

What did the Taoist tradition argue about homosexuality and transgender? I always thought Lao Tzu was incredibly radical in his writing, but I don't know much about actual Taoism in practice.


You could say the Yin-Yang symbol is the world's first explicit symbol of transgenderism, though that is more like my own personal interpretation.

In reality, Daoism, especially Religious Daoism, never was a part of mainstream Chinese culture in ancient times, certainly during most periods. So while Religious Daoism itself might tolerate queer people, Religious Daoists were treated like semi-social outcasts anyway. (But then many Religious Daoists actually want to be social outcasts, Daoism, unlike Confucianism, is pretty much an "not of this world" philosophical tradition)

[Queercommie Girl]

Obviously using "progressive transgender politics" as an excuse to eradicate homosexuality is reactionary.

However, isn't LGB transphobia, namely advocating homosexuality as a way to get rid of transgenderism, equally wrong as well?

The fact that people do not focus on LGB transphobia enough in the West is indeed a problem that needs to be addressed.

I don't support the Iranian state intrinsically of course, due to its theocratic (though no way as bad as US-backed Saudi Arabia) nature and it's oppression of gays, lesbians and women (including trans-women) in general.

But I believe in "giving credits where it's due". Iran does have a relatively progressive policy on transgenderism, and that's a fact. Also, it's probably still the best "theocracy" out there at the moment.

[Hiero]

Iseul, search through my posts for a thread I started a few months ago. It contains a a link to a documentory about sex reassignment surgery in Iran. It provides statements form people in Iran who are about to undergo surgery who state that they wish they didn't have to, but find no other choice. They can not interact in society as a homosexual or a effiminate man, so must fully take up the female catergory through surgery. It supports Rafig's and TC statement.

[Queercommie Girl]

Iseul, search through my posts for a thread I started a few months ago. It contains a a link to a documentory about sex reassignment surgery in Iran. It provides statements form people in Iran who are about to undergo surgery who state that they wish they didn't have to, but find no other choice. They can not interact in society as a homosexual or a effiminate man, so must fully take up the female catergory through surgery. It supports Rafig's and TC statement.

I've never disputed that.

But what about those who actually do wish to change sex completely? Why is it that you seem to completely ignore them?

Do you agree with the line of Western bourgeois LGB transphobes like Julie Bindel who think that transgendered people are just "closest gays and lesbians"?

I can see how campaigning against LGBT politics in Iran may end up having such an effect, if the campaign is in the hands of such LGB transphobes.

[Queercommie Girl]

TC,

Your argument is BS.

No-one here is saying we should oppress women and force them to be housewives etc, either politically or culturally. But the very fact you chose to focus on this element so much shows you come from a Western cultural imperialist "holier-than-thou" bourgeois feminist perspective, which simply assumes that women in Eastern countries "must be" more oppressed than women in Western countries, and every thing Eastern women do which may be somewhat "traditional" is interpretated as the actions of someone being forced to do so by a patriarchal and unequal power dynamic.

Has it never occurred to you that some women may choose to follow a particular lifestyle simply because she wishes to, and can find happiness through it? Are you planning to force all women to follow your narrow beliefs on how women in a "socialist society" should act and behave?

Fuck you and your oppressive ideological dictatorship.

[Hiero]

I've never disputed that.

But what about those who actually do wish to change sex completely? Why is it that you seem to completely ignore them?

Do you agree with the line of Western bourgeois LGB transphobes like Julie Bindel who think that transgendered people are just "closest gays and lesbians"?

I can see how campaigning against LGBT politics in Iran may end up having such an effect, if the campaign is in the hands of such LGB transphobes.

What about them? I am addressing the state and it's role. What lies behind the state is a reactionary intent. It does not matter what I think about transgendered people. People should be able to choose what ever lifestyle suits their personal identity as long it doesn't interfere with others. In a Communist society people will have the symbolic power to choose lifestyles that does not interfere with others. Not country is close to this level of freedom, but Iran is far behind in this race. Iran offers nothing to gay males except change sex.

[Queercommie Girl]

What about them? I am addressing the state and it's role. What lies behind the state is a reactionary intent. It does not matter what I think about transgendered people. People should be able to choose what ever lifestyle suits their personal identity as long it doesn't interfere with others. In a Communist society people will have the symbolic power to choose lifestyles that does not interfere with others. Not country is close to this level of freedom, but Iran is far behind in this race. Iran offers nothing to gay males except change sex.

No-one supports Iran. I don't support Iran.

I "support" Iran as much as I "support" Obama or Ed Miliband or Hu Jintao, as the "lesser evil".

Surely any sane Marxist can see that as bad as Iran is, an US backed revolution in Iran would be even worse for the Iranian people, and yes for Iranian LGBT people as well.

And as bad as Iran is, Iranian Islamism is significantly better than the strand of reactionary Islamism in US-backed Saudi Arabia, or the crazy Islamic terrorism in Pakistan that just led to the brutal cold-blooded murder of a governor.

"Progressive" and "reactionary" are relative.

And to be frank with you, I don't buy the Western queer and feminist BS about how the capitalist West is so much better than Islamic Iran when it comes to queer rights. I criticise Iran, sure, as every genuine socialist should, but I criticise the capitalist West equally. In fact, I dare say on many issues the capitalist West isn't really better than Iran at all. I reject the Islamophobic demonisation of Iran in the West.

You are smoking weed if you think queer rights in the West are good. Last time I checked, murder of transgender people in the US is far higher than in a country like Iran. Despite the oppression women experience in Iran to some extent, at least trans-women in Iran can live with a level of dignity that they cannot in the capitalist West. And while it's true that the Iranian Islamic state murders gays and lesbians using the violent power of the state machine, but frankly how the fuck is that any worse than the murder of gay people in the West which the capitalist police force largely ignores and driving gay teenagers to suicide through systematic socio-economic and cultural oppression?

Criticise Iran yes, of course, but if you are coming from the hypocritical perspective of Western bourgeois liberals, and their hypocritical "holier-than-thou" cultural imperialist attitude against Eastern nations, and follow their hypocritical bourgeois feminist and LGB transphobic agenda, then frankly you might as well fuck off.

In many ways Western bourgeois liberalism is even worse than Iranian Islamism. If you can't see that, then you are no Marxist.

FUCK LIBERAL FEMINISM and their BS liberal bourgeois cultural imperialist views.

At least Islamists always mean what they say and are completely honest, even if they are reactionary, unlike the hypocritical scum-bags of the capitalist West.

[Hiero]

No-one supports Iran. I don't support Iran.

I "support" Iran as much as I "support" Obama or Ed Miliband or Hu Jintao, as the "lesser evil".

Surely any sane Marxist can see that as bad as Iran is, an US backed revolution in Iran would be even worse for the Iranian people, and yes for Iranian LGBT people as well.

And as bad as Iran is, Iranian Islamism is significantly better than the strand of reactionary Islamism in US-backed Saudi Arabia, or the crazy Islamic terrorism in Pakistan that just led to the brutal cold-blooded murder of a governor.

"Progressive" and "reactionary" are relative.

And to be frank with you, I don't buy the Western queer and feminist BS about how the capitalist West is so much better than Islamic Iran when it comes to queer rights. I criticise Iran, sure, as every genuine socialist should, but I criticise the capitalist West equally. In fact, I dare say on many issues the capitalist West isn't really better than Iran at all. I reject the Islamophobic demonisation of Iran in the West.

You are smoking weed if you think queer rights in the West are good. Last time I checked, murder of transgender people in the US is far higher than in a country like Iran. Despite the oppression women experience in Iran to some extent, at least trans-women in Iran can live with a level of dignity that they cannot in the capitalist West. And while it's true that the Iranian Islamic state murders gays and lesbians using the violent power of the state machine, but frankly how the fuck is that any worse than the murder of gay people in the West which the capitalist police force largely ignores and driving gay teenagers to suicide through systematic socio-economic and cultural oppression?

Criticise Iran yes, of course, but if you are coming from the hypocritical perspective of Western bourgeois liberals, and their hypocritical "holier-than-thou" cultural imperialist attitude against Eastern nations, and follow their hypocritical bourgeois feminist and LGB transphobic agenda, then frankly you might as well fuck off.

In many ways Western bourgeois liberalism is even worse than Iranian Islamism. If you can't see that, then you are no Marxist.

FUCK LIBERAL FEMINISM and their BS liberal bourgeois cultural imperialist views.

At least Islamists always mean what they say and are completely honest, even if they are reactionary, unlike the hypocritical scum-bags of the capitalist West.

I am not doing any of the accusations that you thrown at me. I am merely stating why Iran supports sex change surgery. In my limited posts you could not quote any instances that support your claims against me. If that is what you are doing, implying a a Western cultural imperialist.

[Queercommie Girl]

I am not doing any of the accusations that you thrown at me. I am merely stating why Iran supports sex change surgery. In my limited posts you could not quote any instances that support your claims against me. If that is what you are doing, implying a a Western cultural imperialist.


I was not directly accusing you, in case you mis-understand.

However, what I said is something Marxists should hammer into their own heads. It's fact that Western capitalism isn't really better for women and queer people compared with Eastern countries.

Often the oppression is just different. Did you know that in Sweden a large percentage of rape cases never even get dealt with? While in Islamic Iran women may be expected to act more like "housewives", at least rape is much more rare.

And as much as I don't like being a "housewife", it's still better to serve my husband as a "housewife" than to be raped by a stranger on the street without any proper justice done to the criminal.

And it's cultural imperialist for people like TC to assume that all women in Eastern countries are just "oppressed housewives". :rolleyes: What a "holier-than-thou" Western-centric attitude!

[Sentinel]

No-one here is saying we should oppress women and force them to be housewives etc, either politically or culturally. But the very fact you chose to focus on this element so much shows you come from a Western cultural imperialist "holier-than-thou" bourgeois feminist perspective, which simply assumes that women in Eastern countries "must be" more oppressed than women in Western countries, and every thing Eastern women do which may be somewhat "traditional" is interpretated as the actions of someone being forced to do so by a patriarchal and unequal power dynamic.


The reason that so many women in the 'west' and other secular countries tend to strive for having a job and income of their own -- being independent actors in society -- rather than conforming to traditional gender roles ie being housewives is not due to cultural differences but a result of centuries of struggle for emancipation.

We are not talking about cultural differences here, women in the 'west' were equally oppressed by our christian culture before they successfully demanded their rights -- just like progressive women are now trying to do in the rest of the world. Cultural-relativist rhetoric like yours isn't helping them.


And while it's true that the Iranian Islamic state murders gays and lesbians using the violent power of the state machine, but frankly how the fuck is that any worse than the murder of gay people in the West which the capitalist police force largely ignores and driving gay teenagers to suicide through systematic socio-economic and cultural oppression?

You anwered your own question.. :rolleyes: It's obviously worse because it's done directly by the state apparatus -- the police -- following the letter of law. Admittedly, while far from perfect, Sweden is one of the absolutely best countries compared to other 'western' ones in this regard (LGBT equality), but here I'm able to live as a completely open homosexual.

Yes, I have to face homophobia at times and risk hate crimes etc, but in Iran I'd be immediately hanged by the state -- unless I made a sex change surgery which I really don't want, of course. You can't possibly compare the situations.

Noone here is supporting LGB or other kinds of transphobia just because we condemn the horrible policy of Iran to force sex change upon gays/lesbians, by which transsexuals are benefited by coincidence, not purposefully. Like others have said it's purpose is to prevent challenging of gender norms; according to the mullahs only men that like women and women that like men are allowed to exist, that's it, and the aim of this policy is to create such a situation.

Due to it's underlying reasons and the practical consequences for gays in Iran who are forced to undergo surgery against their will, your praise of the sex change policy of Iran (calling it 'relatively progressive') is offensive towards gay people everywhere. As you, rightfully, condemn LGB transphobia, why not show solidarity to gay people in this regard yourself then?

We cannot support reactionary policies that benefit some of us if they are oppressive against others. The correct approach here is to condemn the policy and demand an actually proggressive one instead.



Often the oppression is just different. Did you know that in Sweden a large percentage of rape cases never even get dealt with? While in Islamic Iran women may be expected to act more like "housewives", at least rape is much more rare.


I'm sorry but this comes off as quite reactionary. If rape cases aren't dealt with then there is problem with the justice system that needs to be dealt with, but by no means is a patriachal society or a situation akin to that in Iran the answer.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

TC,

Your argument is BS.

No-one here is saying we should oppress women and force them to be housewives etc, either politically or culturally. But the very fact you chose to focus on this element so much shows you come from a Western cultural imperialist "holier-than-thou" bourgeois feminist perspective, which simply assumes that women in Eastern countries "must be" more oppressed than women in Western countries, and every thing Eastern women do which may be somewhat "traditional" is interpretated as the actions of someone being forced to do so by a patriarchal and unequal power dynamic.

Has it never occurred to you that some women may choose to follow a particular lifestyle simply because she wishes to, and can find happiness through it? Are you planning to force all women to follow your narrow beliefs on how women in a "socialist society" should act and behave?

Fuck you and your oppressive ideological dictatorship.
Calm yourself.


As for TC, I think you should really look into the difference between Gender Identity Disorder (you can find it in DSM IV) and homosexuality (which is not GID)
Gender Identity Disorder has nothing to do with who you are attracted to. In fact, several of my friends are MtF and identify as lesbian. I'm MtF and I happen to be bisexual.
As for Iran, I can't speak since I've never been there.
Yeah I think patriarchy forced upon anyone is terrible. Who dominates which relationship (if anyone) is a matter of personal choice between any and all consenting members of the relationship.

[Queercommie Girl]

The reason that so many women in the 'west' and other secular countries tend to strive for having a job and income of their own -- being independent actors in society -- rather than conforming to traditional gender roles ie being housewives is not due to cultural differences but a result of centuries of struggle for emancipation.

We are not talking about cultural differences here, women in the 'west' were equally oppressed before they successfully demanded their rights -- just like progressive women are now trying to do in the rest of the world. Cultural-relativist rhetoric like yours isn't helping them.


But hey, is there really anything intrinsically inferior about traditional "women's jobs", like say caring for children, the elderly and the sick at home?

I don't support the institution of "being a housewife", but I also don't agree with the idea that "traditional masculine jobs" are somehow intrinsically superior to "traditional feminine jobs". I consider it to be sexism of the second order. Not sexism against women directly, but sexism against everything that is perceived to be "feminine", whether it's work styles or dress styles, or whatever.

I don't think a communist society is where every single person, male or female, queer or straight, is forced to be "hyper-masculinised", where everything that is considered to be "traditionally feminine", whatever that means, is completely thrown out of the window.

On the contrary, from a socialist feminist perspective, the fact that women do so much unpaid work at home is indeed precisely a problem introduced by capitalism and class society. It is because such work is undervalued and unpaid that they are looked down upon, and consequently women as well. In a socialist society, we should actually raise the social status of "caring jobs", instead of dismissing them as just an institution that oppressed women. And yes it should become gender-neutral as well, rather than just something that is exclusively associated with women. (No reason why men can't be "housewives" too - even when social care is socialised, some men or women might still wish to specialise in "caring jobs")



You anwered your own question.. :rolleyes: It's obviously worse because it's done directly by the state apparatus -- the police -- following the letter of law. Admittedly, while far from perfect, Sweden is one of the absolutely best countries compared to other 'western' ones in this regard (LGBT equality), but here I'm able to live as a completely open homosexual.
I think the only reason Sweden is better than the US is due to its Social Democratic heritage. In the US murder rates for trans people and for gays and lesbians are far higher than in most of Europe.

Sweden isn't the model for Western-style liberal capitalism.



Yes, I have to face homophobia at times and risk hate crimes etc, but in Iran I'd be immediately hanged by the state -- unless I made a sex change surgery which I really don't want, of course. You can't possibly compare the situations.
I need to do more research on the situation of queer people in Iran, but I've read that the oppression faced by gays and lesbians in Iran has actually been exaggerated deliberately by the Western bourgeois media for political reasons.



Noone here is supporting LGB or other kinds of transphobia just because we condemn the horrible policy of Iran to force sex change upon gays/lesbians, by which transsexuals are benefited by coincidence, not purposefully. Like others have said it's purpose is to prevent challenging of gender norms; according to the mullahs only men that like women and women that like men are allowed to exist, that's it, and the aim of this policy is to create such a situation.

Due to it's underlying reasons and the practical consequences for gays in Iran who are forced to undergo surgery against their will, your praise of the sex change policy of Iran (calling it 'relatively progressive') is offensive towards gay people everywhere. As you, rightfully, condemn LGB transphobia, why not show solidarity to gay people in this regard yourself then?

We cannot support reactionary policies that benefit some of us if they are oppressive against others. The correct approach here is to condemn the policy and demand an actually proggressive one instead.
You really don't have to tell me that at all, since I'm bi-sexual as well and also partly genderqueer. I'd probably be hanged in Iran too if it really is as bad as they say it is there.

Therefore obviously I support all LGBT rights, and not just T rights, because even from a purely selfish perspective this would be the prudent cause of action for me.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm sorry but this comes off as quite reactionary. If rape cases aren't dealt with then there is problem with the justice system that needs to be dealt with, but by no means is a patriachal society or a situation akin to that in Iran the answer.


No it's not just a problem with the justice system. If it's just a problem with the justice system then it's something that potentially can be reformed within the framework of capitalism.

But actually, such problems are intrinsic to the very socio-economic structures of capitalism. So as long as capitalism remains, murder of queer people and rape of women which the capitalist police force just ignores will never cease.

You might have experienced homophobia before (which queer person hasn't), but you don't seem to link the "sporadic homophobia" you've experienced with the underlying mechanism of class society. You can see the obvious link between class society and Iran's state-oppression of queer people, sure, but you can't see the less obvious link between class society and homophobic hate crime, rather you just attribute such hate crime to "random events of violence". Would such "random violence" occur in a communist society too?

Maybe I need to stress this again, but no-one ever said Iranian Islamism is the answer. I only "support" Iran in a limited sense against an US-backed "colour revolution".

[TC]

As for TC, I think you should really look into the difference between Gender Identity Disorder (you can find it in DSM IV) and homosexuality (which is not GID)
Gender Identity Disorder has nothing to do with who you are attracted to. In fact, several of my friends are MtF and identify as lesbian. I'm MtF and I happen to be bisexual.

I know of course that being transgender and being gay are completely different - Iseul grossly misunderstood and misrepresented what I was saying, which I clarified in an exchange of PMs, but since she is now being very rude and hostile I'm not really interested in continuing any exchange with her.

If you reread what I wrote:


Supporting transgender surgeries in a social context where it is understood as part of being gay, and being gay constitutes a 'sin' - is progressive - since it constitutes part of the fight against patriarchal gender relations and homophobia (homophobia itself being a symptom of patriarchal relations).

But in a social context like Iran's, where transgenderism is understood in a different social context, there is nothing progressive about the regimes support for it - it is if anything, a way of consolidating strict gender roles.

You see that I never said that being transgender is part of being gay, rather that support for it in contexts where it is understood that way is progressive.

Obviously I don't endorse bourgeois cultural perspectives. I was merely describing the way the prevailing western understanding differs from the prevailing Iranian understanding and why that difference in understanding (not in fact) is relevantly different for how we analyze their policies.

In the west, LGBT people are, as the term implies, grouped together by the political establishment for 'culture war' purposes between liberals and conservatives. This means that conservatives oppose transgendered people's rights in the west for the same reasons they oppose gay people's rights: because they see both as threats to rigid traditional gender roles. Thus, resisting that tendency is progressive in that context. This has everything to do with conservative attitudes, and nothing to do with any sort of objective reality (if such a thing is thought to exist).

In Iran however, the situation is reversed. Trans people and gay people are seen separately by the establishment: conservatives in Iran oppose gay people for the same reason western conservatives do, as examples of nonconformity to traditional gender roles...but for whatever reason they see trans people as potentially conforming into traditional gender role so Iranian conservatives do not view them as being a threat in the same way (just because they've conceptualized this different than their western counterparts). Given this Iranian context, what they're doing isn't progressive its just their different way of getting people to conform (in contrast to western conservatives who would prefer to have people "pray out the gay").

[TC]

The reason that so many women in the 'west' and other secular countries tend to strive for having a job and income of their own -- being independent actors in society -- rather than conforming to traditional gender roles ie being housewives is not due to cultural differences but a result of centuries of struggle for emancipation.

We are not talking about cultural differences here, women in the 'west' were equally oppressed by our christian culture before they successfully demanded their rights -- just like progressive women are now trying to do in the rest of the world. Cultural-relativist rhetoric like yours isn't helping them.

An excellent comment.

Not all social arrangements are equal and in Iran the power differential between men and women is vastly greater than it is in the west. Iran and the west are, with regard to patriarchy, in different epochs.

The liberal cultural relevativist gloss over this as "cultural differences" assumes the perspective of male privilege by treating women's legal and social status and relative personal power in a society as a merely superficial, cosmetic institution - like whether the national dish is made with rice noodles or wheat noodles.





:rolleyes: It's obviously worse because it's done directly by the state apparatus -- the police -- following the letter of law. Admittedly, while far from perfect, Sweden is one of the absolutely best countries compared to other 'western' ones in this regard (LGBT equality), but here I'm able to live as a completely open homosexual.

Yes, I have to face homophobia at times and risk hate crimes etc, but in Iran I'd be immediately hanged by the state -- unless I made a sex change surgery which I really don't want, of course. You can't possibly compare the situations.


Exactly. Anyone who denies the difference between depressed people deciding to commit suicide and state executions is denying the relevance of power. Thats not Marxist, its liberal.

Like others have said it's purpose is to prevent challenging of gender norms; according to the mullahs only men that like women and women that like men are allowed to exist, that's it, and the aim of this policy is to create such a situation.

Due to it's underlying reasons and the practical consequences for gays in Iran who are forced to undergo surgery against their will, your praise of the sex change policy of Iran (calling it 'relatively progressive') is offensive towards gay people everywhere. As you, rightfully, condemn LGB transphobia, why not show solidarity to gay people in this regard yourself then?



We cannot support reactionary policies that benefit some of us if they are oppressive against others. The correct approach here is to condemn the policy and demand an actually proggressive one instead.

A really good point.




I'm sorry but this comes off as quite reactionary. If rape cases aren't dealt with then there is problem with the justice system that needs to be dealt with, but by no means is a patriachal society or a situation akin to that in Iran the answer.

It is absolutely reactionary and sexist. The random risk of violence that both men and women face (and men moreso) is not comparable to the systemic institutionalized patriarchal relations that women are raised in, expected enter into, and disadvantaged by even when avoiding traditional patriarchal families as adults.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not all social arrangements are equal and in Iran the power differential between men and women is vastly greater than it is in the west. Iran and the west are, with regard to patriarchy, in different epochs.

The liberal cultural relevativist gloss over this as "cultural differences" assumes the perspective of male privilege by treating women's legal and social status and relative personal power in a society as a merely superficial, cosmetic institution - like whether the national dish is made with rice noodles or wheat noodles.


Save me your implicitly cultural racist attitudes towards the Chinese.

So I guess your point is that "traditional masculine jobs" are somehow intrinsically superior compared with "traditional feminine jobs", that a worker who is working in a coal mine has more worth than a worker who is working in child care in the eyes of Marxism? That a steel worker (of any gender) is better than a nurse (of any gender)? That a woman who decides to be a steel worker deserves more respect from society than a man who decides to be a nurse?

It is certainly not "cultural relativism" to suggest that not only are men and women equal, but "masculine" and "feminine" are also equal, and where certain expressions of "femininity" (and "masculinity" as well for that matter, like the fetishisation of macho violence in Western imperialist nations) may be considered reactionary, it is only these expressions and elements that are wrong, not "femininity" and "masculinity" intrinsically.

It is a mistake to assume, in the abstract, that the only way to liberate and empower women is to make them "more like men", as if there is something intrinsically superior about "masculine" ways.



Exactly. Anyone who denies the difference between depressed people deciding to commit suicide and state executions is denying the relevance of power. Thats not Marxist, its liberal.
Difference yes. But both are symptoms of class oppression. To say one is better than the other in any qualitatively sense is like saying the person who has only ran away from the battlefield 50 steps is more courageous than the person who has ran away from the battlefield 200 steps.

Or are you saying that a depressed queer person who commits suicide has done so due to his or her own fault, rather than as a result of the systematic explicit and implicit oppression in capitalist class society? That would be a reactionary social darwinist position.



It is absolutely reactionary and sexist. The random risk of violence that both men and women face (and men moreso) is not comparable to the systemic institutionalized patriarchal relations that women are raised in, expected enter into, and disadvantaged by even when avoiding traditional patriarchal families as adults.
There is no such thing as "random violence". If you can't even see the intrinsic links between criminal violence and the underlying system of Western capitalism, you are not a Marxist.

And you almost sound like "random violence" isn't a problem, it's just something we all have to live with, as if we all live in a pre-historic jungle, where everyone has to fend for himself/herself.

In a genuine communist society, there would be no criminal violence of any significance what-so-ever. And a Stalinist "communist" society that still has significant criminal problems is obviously not genuinely communist.

BTW, my cultural pluralistic attitudes are not liberal but anarchist. I detest the way the Stalinist bureaucracy likes to control people's cultural attitudes into their narrow understanding of what "socialism" is, and I also detest the way Western liberals like to use their "holier-than-thou" cultural imperialist attitudes to ideologically support Western imperialism-backed "colour revolutions" in the Third World.

[Queercommie Girl]

I know of course that being transgender and being gay are completely different - Iseul grossly misunderstood and misrepresented what I was saying, which I clarified in an exchange of PMs, but since she is now being very rude and hostile I'm not really interested in continuing any exchange with her.


It's not obvious from what you have wrote at all, and you largely ignored and dismissed all the arguments I've been trying to make against you, as if I'm just a 2nd-class citizen in your eyes.

[TC]

I make it known, that I do not reward people being aggressive and nasty to me by continuing to reply to their posts. This way, people know that if they want me to engage with them, they need to be civil towards me - think of it as an incentive to be decent.

I am interested in discussing ideas not in getting involved in personality conflicts and mud slinging fights. Personally attack me and expect that it will be the end of the conversation.

[Queercommie Girl]

I make it known, that I do not reward people being aggressive and nasty to me by continuing to reply to their posts. This way, people know that if they want me to engage with them, they need to be civil towards me - think of it as an incentive to be decent.

I am interested in discussing ideas not in getting involved in personality conflicts and mud slinging fights. Personally attack me and expect that it will be the end of the conversation.

You say that only because you have no real replies to my arguments, in order to save face. :rolleyes:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

You say that only because you have no real replies to my arguments, in order to save face. :rolleyes:
Take it easy. You have you're heart in the right place but be rational. You misunderstood what TC was saying. Don't be so hostile towards her, it's not like she's a transphobe or anything.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Are you sure of this ? First of all, hermaphrodites and transexuals are not the same. Secondly, in such matters Indian society has been one of the most conservative ones ever. And lastly, hermaphrodites have always been so hated that they were either killed when they were born, or given to the hermaphrodite community practically isolated from the society. They have been mentioned in some texts to be punished by the gods. So they were always hated.

No, but my understanding was that the Hijra were an eclectic bunch that included hermaphrodites, surgical eunuchs and transexuals.

Anyways, Hinduism has always been an incredibly pluralistic religion, meaning it could include both really oppressive and bigoted interpretations as well as really open and morally progressive interpretations, moreso than other faiths due to the size of the community and the sheer number of contradictory religious texts. I found it interesting, for instance, how conflicted Hindu thinkers seem to be with Caste, some coming down hard in favor of it, others dismissing it, and most (such as Sankarchaya) embracing a confused rejection of caste on a philosophical level with a belief in its social maintenance.


You could say the Yin-Yang symbol is the world's first explicit symbol of transgenderism, though that is more like my own personal interpretation.

In reality, Daoism, especially Religious Daoism, never was a part of mainstream Chinese culture in ancient times, certainly during most periods. So while Religious Daoism itself might tolerate queer people, Religious Daoists were treated like semi-social outcasts anyway. (But then many Religious Daoists actually want to be social outcasts, Daoism, unlike Confucianism, is pretty much an "not of this world" philosophical tradition)

Interesting. I was always attracted to Daoism as a teenager, but recently I got more into Indian and Western philosophy. I read the Dao De Ching, but that's pretty much it (and I know there are a bunch of other texts in the religion, its a bit like reading the rig veda and thinking you "know hinduism" or genesis and thinking you "know judaism".)

Also, weren't there some radical interpretations of Daoism, such as the Yellow Turbans? I remember them being in some crap "historical" *cough* video games on playstation, but after reading about their actual origins they seemed like a very interesting movement.


As for the debate between TC and Iseul, I think some information on gender roles in Shia Islamic theology would be useful. But I'm no expert on that-I'd look it up, but I have very little on Islamic thought in my "personal library". Perhaps I'll look it up on the internet. Either way, I think the point is that Persia is having its own cultural dialectic, separate from that of Western Europe although there is clearly an exchange of ideas there too. It is culturally imperialist to imply that Iran is objectively "behind" the west based on the facts presented so far. Does Iran have harsher gender roles? In some respects, yes (ie, differences in how men and women are punished, etc), in some respects, no (ie the fact that you can switch between these gender roles). Does Iran have harsher marriage and premarital sex laws? In some respects, yes, in other respects, no (Iran and other Islamic theologians elsewhere believe in the right for horny youngsters to have "temporary marriages" to prevent sinful activity). Iran is on its own path of development, and I don't think there's any one linear pattern towards the liberation of sexual minorities.

[Sentinel]

But hey, is there really anything intrinsically inferior about traditional "women's jobs", like say caring for children, the elderly and the sick at home?

I don't support the institution of "being a housewife", but I also don't agree with the idea that "traditional masculine jobs" are somehow intrinsically superior to "traditional feminine jobs". I consider it to be sexism of the second order. Not sexism against women directly, but sexism against everything that is perceived to be "feminine", whether it's work styles or dress styles, or whatever.

I don't think a communist society is where every single person, male or female, queer or straight, is forced to be "hyper-masculinised", where everything that is considered to be "traditionally feminine", whatever that means, is completely thrown out of the window.

On the contrary, from a socialist feminist perspective, the fact that women do so much unpaid work at home is indeed precisely a problem introduced by capitalism and class society. It is because such work is undervalued and unpaid that they are looked down upon, and consequently women as well. In a socialist society, we should actually raise the social status of "caring jobs", instead of dismissing them as just an institution that oppressed women. And yes it should become gender-neutral as well, rather than just something that is exclusively associated with women. (No reason why men can't be "housewives" too - even when social care is socialised, some men or women might still wish to specialise in "caring jobs")



I don't disagree, but we are discussing the current situation. As long as we aren't in a socialist society we have to support the fight of women to equal rights, including economical independence, as the preferable option.

To accomplish this we have to strive for women getting proper education as well as getting out on the labour market on equal terms with men. What we can't do is to assume that everything will be resolved after the socialist revolution; we have to support the struggle of women -- and gays, and immigrants, and other victims of -- right here and now.

This not only because it's the right thing to do, but because a revolution by a unified, conscious and progressive working class is more likely to succeed. We need all the forces we can get, and it's the struggle that creates the consciousness.


I think the only reason Sweden is better than the US is due to its Social Democratic heritage. In the US murder rates for trans people and for gays and lesbians are far higher than in most of Europe.

Sweden isn't the model for Western-style liberal capitalism.


Indeed, indeed. But the repression is still much stronger in Iran than in these countries. The bourgeois 'democracy' is the best form of government within capitalism, not just for working class women but all workers.

It was true when Lenin said it in 1917 and it's true when I say it in 2011.


No it's not just a problem with the justice system. If it's just a problem with the justice system then it's something that potentially can be reformed within the framework of capitalism.

But actually, such problems are intrinsic to the very socio-economic structures of capitalism. So as long as capitalism remains, murder of queer people and rape of women which the capitalist police force just ignores will never cease.

You might have experienced homophobia before (which queer person hasn't), but you don't seem to link the "sporadic homophobia" you've experienced with the underlying mechanism of class society. You can see the obvious link between class society and Iran's state-oppression of queer people, sure, but you can't see the less obvious link between class society and homophobic hate crime, rather you just attribute such hate crime to "random events of violence". Would such "random violence" occur in a communist society too?

That's a long conclusion from one sentence. You know, the fact that I didn't elaborate on what the faults of the justice system depend on doesn't necessarily imply that I don't understand it..

[Vanguard1917]

As Rafiq pointed out, the high number of sex-change operations in Iran is largely due to state oppression of homosexuals. Gay men can face the death penalty in Iran, but under Ayatollah Khomeini sex-change operations were introduced as a state-sanctioned, clergy-endorsed 'solution' to homosexuality. As a result, hundreds of gay men are compelled to undergo castration and other sorts of demeaning procedures merely in order to be able to live legally with their partners.

Needless to say, there is nothing 'relatively progressive' about this degraded and humiliating state of affairs. The situation in Iran -- which has the second highest sex-change rate in the world -- is also evidence of how the desire to undergo a sex-change operation can be powerfully influenced by political and cultural factors, and is not, at least in many cases, determined by biological causes.

A 2008 BBC report about 'transexuals' in Iran: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7259057.stm

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As Rafiq pointed out, the high number of sex-change operations in Iran is largely due to state oppression of homosexuals. Gay men can face the death penalty in Iran, but under Ayatollah Khomeini sex-change operations were introduced as a state-sanctioned, clergy-endorsed 'solution' to homosexuality. As a result, hundreds of gay men are compelled to undergo castration and other sorts of demeaning procedures merely in order to be able to live legally with their partners.

Needless to say, there is nothing 'relatively progressive' about this degraded and humiliating state of affairs. The situation in Iran -- which has the second highest sex-change rate in the world -- is also evidence of how the desire to undergo a sex-change operation can be powerfully influenced by political and cultural factors, and is not, at least in many cases, determined by biological causes.

A 2008 BBC report about 'transexuals' in Iran: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7259057.stm

Homosexuality and transsexualism are qualitatively two different things.It is degrading and oppressive if a homosexual man is forced to be castrated in order to express his sexuality. This is not the case if the person in question is a male to female transsexual.Again they qualitatively different phenemona.

Homosexuality refers to sexual orientation, transgenderism is gender identity. They are different but related. A "sex change operation" in this case is not punishment for being gay but corrective surgery. Most transsexuals welcome this.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't disagree, but we are discussing the current situation. As long as we aren't in a socialist society we have to support the fight of women to equal rights, including economical independence, as the preferable option.

To accomplish this we have to strive for women getting proper education as well as getting out on the labour market on equal terms with men. What we can't do is to assume that everything will be resolved after the socialist revolution; we have to support the struggle of women -- and gays, and immigrants, and other victims of -- right here and now.


I never said otherwise. However, to fight against patriarchal oppression at home and in the workplace does not equate with negating one's own "femininity". It is an idealistic "radical" bourgeois feminist position to argue that the only way women can achieve equality with men is for women to shed their own "femininity" and become more like men. I don't agree with such a position. I don't believe "traditionally more feminine jobs" like childcare and nursing are somehow intrinsically inferior than "traditionally more masculine jobs" like working in a coal mine.

Or are you suggesting that the only way for women to liberate themselves is for them to behave more like men? I believe such an attitude itself is sexist.



This not only because it's the right thing to do, but because a revolution by a unified, conscious and progressive working class is more likely to succeed. We need all the forces we can get, and it's the struggle that creates the consciousness.
Yes, and you shouldn't forget transgendered people in this either. (Not necessarily saying you've forgotten, just reminding you)

I feel that while gay and trans issues are related, they are not the same, and often trans issues get ignored or not considered sufficiently because all of the focus when it comes to LGBT politics seem to solely rest on gay and lesbian issues. (Almost as if trans rights aren't as important as gay rights)

Also, in the West at least, transphobia does exist within the LGB community, though not as strongly as outside the LGB community. Whereas in countries like China, LGB and trans people are equally oppressed more or less, so there is no real "LGB transphobia".



Indeed, indeed. But the repression is still much stronger in Iran than in these countries. The bourgeois 'democracy' is the best form of government within capitalism, not just for working class women but all workers.

It was true when Lenin said it in 1917 and it's true when I say it in 2011.
Technically this might be true, but let us not over-state such things. We don't want to be like the soldier who ran away from the battlefield 50 steps accusing the soldier who ran away from the battlefield 200 steps for being a coward. Fact of the matter is, all capitalist systems are very oppressive.

Now, while what you said might be true for many sections of workers, it certainly isn't true for all sections. The American capitalist democracy isn't necessarily a better place for Muslim workers at all, due to its prevalent Islamophobia, and it certainly isn't a better place for transgendered workers compared with Iran, because murder rates for trans people are far higher in the US than in Iran.

The thing with Iran is that frankly I don't trust all of the mainstream Western bourgeois sources on the country, just like I don't trust all the bourgeois sources on Maoist China. While I certainly don't deny that homophobic oppression exists in the country, I do suspect that Western media sources tend to exaggerate things for political reasons.

Here are two articles about LGBT issues in Iran which are different from the mainstream Western perspective. I'm not taking these simply at face value either, but I don't really see any reason why they are any less reliable than say an article from the BBC.

(I got the articles from graymouser, a Trotskyist here on RevLeft)

http://www.workers.org/2006/us/anti-iran-0720/index.html
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/iran-0629/index.html

Also, while it is true that in principle a bourgeois democracy is slightly better than a bourgeois society that is not a democracy, I certainly won't support an US-backed colour revolution in Iran, because although the US itself is a capitalist democracy, an US-backed revolution in Iran will certainly not bring about anything close to a bourgeois democracy in the country. It would only make things worse for the Iranian people, including Iranian LGBT people. Therefore relatively speaking the current Iranian regime is certainly the lesser of the two evils compared with an US-backed revolution in the country, just like Obama himself is the lesser of the two evils within the US.



That's a long conclusion from one sentence. You know, the fact that I didn't elaborate on what the faults of the justice system depend on doesn't necessarily imply that I don't understand it.
It's good to know that at least you are not fooling yourself that "legal reforms" within the capitalist system are sufficient to bring about genuine equality for LGBT people.

While I disagree with the ultra-leftist anarchist line that consider any kind of reformist-oriented efforts within the current system to be completely useless, since I largely agree with the Trotskyist idea of "transitional programmes", it is certainly the case that any reformist effort will not be any kind of ultimate solution, whether for LGBT people, or for anyone else for that matter.

[Queercommie Girl]

As Rafiq pointed out, the high number of sex-change operations in Iran is largely due to state oppression of homosexuals. Gay men can face the death penalty in Iran, but under Ayatollah Khomeini sex-change operations were introduced as a state-sanctioned, clergy-endorsed 'solution' to homosexuality. As a result, hundreds of gay men are compelled to undergo castration and other sorts of demeaning procedures merely in order to be able to live legally with their partners.

Needless to say, there is nothing 'relatively progressive' about this degraded and humiliating state of affairs. The situation in Iran -- which has the second highest sex-change rate in the world -- is also evidence of how the desire to undergo a sex-change operation can be powerfully influenced by political and cultural factors, and is not, at least in many cases, determined by biological causes.

A 2008 BBC report about 'transexuals' in Iran: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7259057.stm

It isn't just gays that are forced to change sex in Iran, but lesbians too.

I wonder why is it that you solely focus on gays. Do you believe that "masculinity" is somehow intrinsically superior to "femininity" so that it is "degrading" for gays to be forced to become women but not so "degrading" for lesbians to be forced to become men? That somehow intrinsically it is better to be a man than to be a woman?

Cultural factors certainly are involved in sexuality and gender identity, but this doesn't necessarily make them wrong. In Iran's case it is wrong but only because the state machine is involved in a reactionary way. In Eastern cultures generally transgenderism is more accepted than in Western cultures, does this make Eastern cultures intrinsically "wrong"? Only a transphobe would have such a view. Even if capitalist cultures are indeed slightly better than pre-capitalist cultures, there is no reason at all why capitalist culture must be "Western" in nature. Capitalism, like socialism, is an universal mode of productive relation, and hence transcends cultural differences.

[PhoenixAsh]

While in Islamic Iran women may be expected to act more like "housewives", at least rape is much more rare.

you really think so?

[PhoenixAsh]

It isn't just gays that are forced to change sex in Iran, but lesbians too.

I wonder why is it that you solely focus on gays. Do you believe that "masculinity" is somehow intrinsically superior to "femininity" so that it is "degrading" for gays to be forced to become women but not so "degrading" for lesbians to be forced to become men? That somehow intrinsically it is better to be a man than to be a woman?

Gay is a derivitate term from homosexual which refers to all same sex inter relationships.

[Queercommie Girl]

Gay is a derivitate term from homosexual which refers to all same sex inter relationships.

In the abstract perhaps, but if you actually read vanguard1917's comments you would see that he solely focused on government-forced male-to-female sex changes, as if the opposite form (female-to-male sex changes) doesn't even exist.

[Queercommie Girl]

you really think so?


Do you really have evidence to suggest the contrary, or are you simply going to jump onto the bandwagon of Islamophobia that demonises every Muslim country and culture out there?

[PhoenixAsh]

Do you really have evidence to suggest the contrary, or are you simply going to jump onto the bandwagon of Islamophobia that demonises every Muslim country and culture out there?

I think that in a country which consideres a women to be legally worth less than a man...for some nice examples:

article 33 and 99 of the law of retribution: hodous and ghesas section 2 article 237
(a womens testimony is not worth anything unless seconded by a man)
and article 6 of diyat and article 209 of the law of retribution.

And the fact that women are subject totally to a mans will according to
nesa 34:34 and in combination with artciles 1121 & 1122 of the civic law (divorce for women only allowed in cases of insanity or impotence of the husband).

Plus the practice of the Iranian legal system to put part of the blame of rape on women and punishing them for it.

Furthermore accoding to legal statutes in Iran there si a prohibition to kill virging women. Practice is if a woman is a vrigin she is married out to a guard and raped. Then killed.

this has been put foreward by Iranian women who have managed to escape the regime there.

So...yeah...I think there is a lot of hidden rape in Iran

[Vanguard1917]

In the abstract perhaps, but if you actually read vanguard1917's comments you would see that he solely focused on government-forced male-to-female sex changes, as if the opposite form (female-to-male sex changes) doesn't even exist.

The reports on the matter that i've seen seem to concentrate on men, hence why i focused on them.

[Hiero]

I thought I posted a link to documentory awhile, but I was just describing the documentory.

I stated here http://www.revleft.com/vb/iran-and-transexuals-t144966/index.html?t=144966

I was watching a documentory on transexuals in Iran. What I found interesting was the reason why biological men who gender themselves as female choose to change biological sex. One person undergoing the surgery said that if they were in a Western country they would not have the surgery. This individual believed that the West had laws that protected trasngendered people and cross dresses and assumed the West was socially tolerant of crossdress and trasngendered people in women's spaces. The reason he wanted to change sex to a female was because in Iran he faced harrasment as man gendered as a woman and was unable to enter Woman's spaces. If he changes biological sex to a female the state will change the sex on the person's ID from male to female and being then legall being considered a female will be able to dress like a female and enter female space without harrasment. One person undergoing sugery stated that it was Iran's society that forced him to make this decision and "undo Gods work" as he stated.

It provides an interesting case for concepts of gender and sex. In Iran, 'society' and state bureaucracy have a huge impact on sex reassignment surgery. A woman from a state run radio interviewed the transgendered undergoing surgery and while she was disgusted that someone would reassign their biological sex through surgery she agreed that it would solve alot of harrasment issues. This is an interesting case for understanding binary logic, it is less problematic for Iranians to change sex so their biology configures with their gender appearance than to tanscend gender norms through appearance.

[synthesis]

The reason he wanted to change sex to a female was because in Iran he faced harrasment as man gendered as a woman and was unable to enter Woman's spaces. If he changes biological sex to a female the state will change the sex on the person's ID from male to female and being then legall being considered a female will be able to dress like a female and enter female space without harrasment.

Sorry, I don't follow you on this part. If he wouldn't have the sex change otherwise, why would it then be an issue if he couldn't use the women's restroom and so on?

[southernmissfan]

Noone here is supporting LGB or other kinds of transphobia just because we condemn the horrible policy of Iran to force sex change upon gays/lesbians, by which transsexuals are benefited by coincidence, not purposefully. Like others have said it's purpose is to prevent challenging of gender norms; according to the mullahs only men that like women and women that like men are allowed to exist, that's it, and the aim of this policy is to create such a situation.


I think this is a key point. Iran's sex change policies are progressive only for transsexuals who desire surgery. For homosexuals and trans people who do not desire surgery, the laws are reactionary because they are compelled to have surgery against their wishes. So I'm glad to see that transsexuals (who are pro-surgery) are treated relatively well, but I'm appalled to see the treatment of other sexual minorities.

[Queercommie Girl]

I thought I posted a link to documentory awhile, but I was just describing the documentory.

I stated here http://www.revleft.com/vb/iran-and-transexuals-t144966/index.html?t=144966

I was watching a documentory on transexuals in Iran. What I found interesting was the reason why biological men who gender themselves as female choose to change biological sex. One person undergoing the surgery said that if they were in a Western country they would not have the surgery. This individual believed that the West had laws that protected trasngendered people and cross dresses and assumed the West was socially tolerant of crossdress and trasngendered people in women's spaces. The reason he wanted to change sex to a female was because in Iran he faced harrasment as man gendered as a woman and was unable to enter Woman's spaces. If he changes biological sex to a female the state will change the sex on the person's ID from male to female and being then legall being considered a female will be able to dress like a female and enter female space without harrasment. One person undergoing sugery stated that it was Iran's society that forced him to make this decision and "undo Gods work" as he stated.

It provides an interesting case for concepts of gender and sex. In Iran, 'society' and state bureaucracy have a huge impact on sex reassignment surgery. A woman from a state run radio interviewed the transgendered undergoing surgery and while she was disgusted that someone would reassign their biological sex through surgery she agreed that it would solve alot of harrasment issues. This is an interesting case for understanding binary logic, it is less problematic for Iranians to change sex so their biology configures with their gender appearance than to tanscend gender norms through appearance.

That is itself a transphobic attitude.

True, not all transgendered people are trans-sexuals. But many trans-sexuals do exist.

Do you have a problem with people who wish to change their physical sex through surgery?

[Hiero]

Sorry, I don't follow you on this part. If he wouldn't have the sex change otherwise, why would it then be an issue if he couldn't use the women's restroom and so on?

I am not sure what you are asking, but I am not talking about women's restrooms specifically when I mean woman's spaces. But what his particular man wanted was to wear women's clothes and engage in women's behaviour, he is forbidden to by the Iranian state. I think you are thinking too biological here, the guy could be talking about wearing women's clothes and knitting.



That is itself a transphobic attitude.



My comment? Or the bolded? Because the bold is my recount of an Iranian woman's comment and someone who works for the state.



True, not all transgendered people are trans-sexuals. But many trans-sexuals do exist.


True. I assume by trasngendered you mean people of one sex acting out the gender of the opposite sex and by transexuals you mean thoose who have changed sex.



Do you have a problem with people who wish to change their physical sex through surgery?


What made you ask this question?

I don't understand the context of your last point and the question. You're not going to get me to say something trans phobic.

[TC]

Do you have a problem with people who wish to change their physical sex through surgery?
What made you ask this question?

I don't understand the context of your last point and the question. You're not going to get me to say something trans phobic.

You know exactly why: because Iseul has been trolling you, just like she's been trolling me earlier. Iseul has been using totally unwarranted implicit and explicit accusations of transphobia as a cudgel to dominate the discussions and silence any plurality of views - especially those from a feminist perspective which Iseul clearly despises (except in the not-actually-feminist version psudo-feminism that Iseul mistakenly labels as "socialist feminism" - either not knowing or not caring what socialist feminism actually is). I am sick of this behavior. The paradigm of Iseuls-way-must-always-prevail-utterly, or you're a transphobe, is just bullshit.

Yes, we can have a conversation about gender and sexuality and sexual orientation and power and culture and politics without either being transphobic or agreeing precisely with Iseul's opinion and position on these matters. This is not an either or thing as Iseul seems to think.

There are weird parallels I think between this behavior from Iseul and the zionists who accuse anyone who deviates from their politics as being anti-semites as a means of silencing them - it is a way of using your personal identity as a means of wielding rhetorical authority in a way that makes people afraid to dissent for fear of what they could be accused of.

[Queercommie Girl]

especially those from a feminist perspective which Iseul clearly despises (except in the not-actually-feminist version psudo-feminism that Iseul mistakenly labels as "socialist feminism" - either not knowing or not caring what socialist feminism actually is).


The only kind of feminism I oppose is Western bourgeois feminism, that is to say, the kind that promotes ethnocentrist and transphobic attitudes, and blame men for women's oppression rather than class society in general.

You don't get a monopoly to decide what "feminism" is, sister.

Also, isn't it contradictory to accuse me for "despising feminism" while I am a woman myself? Or perhaps you think trans-feminism is a type of "pseudo-feminism"?



I am sick of this behavior. The paradigm of Iseuls-way-must-always-prevail-utterly, or you're a transphobe, is just bullshit.


Then why don't you go on and report me to the mods. :rolleyes:

I'm sick of your cowardly attempts to criticise me baselessly behind my back instead of responding to me directly.

I thought you dislike "personality conflicts" and "mud-slinging"? Because that's certainly what you are doing here, and behind my back as well.



There are weird parallels I think between this behavior from Iseul and the zionists who accuse anyone who deviates from their politics as being anti-semites as a means of silencing them - it is a way of using your personal identity as a means of wielding rhetorical authority in a way that makes people afraid to dissent for fear of what they could be accused of.

Accusing me of Zionism? You've got to be kidding. This is coming from someone who takes a rather Islamophobic stance and utterly despises everything that is from Islamic Iran, and attempts to label all Eastern women as mere "housewives".:rolleyes:

And I certainly haven't been "accusing everyone of transphobia". You need to get your basic facts right.

[Queercommie Girl]

My comment? Or the bolded? Because the bold is my recount of an Iranian woman's comment and someone who works for the state.


The bolded comment of course, which is clearly transphobic.

I couldn't have been criticising you directly since you never made any direct comments.



What made you ask this question?

I don't understand the context of your last point and the question. You're not going to get me to say something trans phobic.
I'm not trying to "get you" to say anything. But you seem to be quoting that transphobic statement from the "Iranian state worker" without any criticism. I'm not sure whether you agree with the statement or oppose it.

I never accused you personally of anything. I was just asking objective questions. Stop assuming things about me.

[Kotze]

Accusing me of Zionism? You've got to be kidding.That remark, whatever its merits, wasn't about you being a Zionist. The claim was that you occasionally employ a similar way of arguing, the bit with personal identity as a means of wielding rhetorical authority.

[Queercommie Girl]

That remark, whatever its merits, wasn't about you being a Zionist. The claim was that you occasionally employ a similar way of arguing, the bit with personal identity as a means of wielding rhetorical authority.

Ok, but then Marxists should understand about power dynamics.

Zionists generally occupy higher-power social positions than the people they are using their rhetorics against, such as say Palestinians.

Trans people have no such power-authority. Trans people are one of the most disadvantaged groups in the world.

So to draw an analogy between trans people and Zionists is clearly highly inaccurate. Objectively speaking, not examining the merits of the argument itself as you said, a much better analogy would be drawing a parallel between trans people using personal identity as a means of wielding rhetorical authority, and black people in the US using their racial identity as a means of wielding rhetorical authority, perhaps with a bit of "reverse racism", whatever that means.

[TC]

That remark, whatever its merits, wasn't about you being a Zionist. The claim was that you occasionally employ a similar way of arguing, the bit with personal identity as a means of wielding rhetorical authority.


Yes exactly, and I'm sorry for the confusion. I was just using zionists as an example of people who frequently employ the same rhetorical strategy. I obviously don't think Iseul (or anyone else in this thread) is a zionist and it really had nothing to do with zionism as such but rather the tactic of accusing others of prejudice as a means to insulate one's own views from any form of criticism.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's a poor analogy. Given the differences in power dynamics involved.

You could have said I was like the Islamists. (It would be much more fitting given the context of this thread too) Both trans people and Muslims are oppressed groups. Therefore trans identity politics is much more like Muslim identity politics than it can ever be like Zionist identity politics. Just Marxist ABC really.

But then I don't expect you to respond to me.

[Queercommie Girl]

BTW, by socialist feminism I mean the ideology that primarily blames capitalism and class society in general for women's oppression, rather than blaming it primarily on men like many bourgeois feminists tend to do.

This great article from the CWI illustrates quite concisely some of the basic stances of socialist feminism:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/socialistwomen/sw7.htm

The Trouble with men?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Trans people have no such power-authority. Trans people are one of the most disadvantaged groups in the world.
Well you are right in some cases but not all. I know many very wealthy, affluent transwomen (and some transmen too) who live well on their white privilege and large wealth in their mansions.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well you are right in some cases but not all. I know many very wealthy, affluent transwomen (and some transmen too) who live well on their white privilege and large wealth in their mansions.

They are an extreme small minority among the trans population, therefore trans people as a whole is not comparable to relatively privileged groups.

Among black people too, there are some wealthy elites, but they do not statistically represent black people collectively.

But then my interest in trans activism is also based on socialist politics anyway, so I care much much more about disadvantaged trans people than those who are wealthy and powerful.

[Magón]

I would be willing to get down with that Trans chick.

[TC]

I would be willing to get down with that Trans chick.

Its interesting how people can get beyond transphobic attitudes while retaining significantly sexist attitudes...

...and frankly how people on this forum have a great degree of toleration for sexism despite a hair trigger sensitivity to transphobia.

[Queercommie Girl]

That frankly isn't true, because objectively speaking racism, sexism and queerphobia all exist on this forum to some extent.

Your divisive attitudes which attempt to divide oppressed groups will help no-one.

You might have heard of the likes of Thomas Shankara, who was actually banned from RevLeft for his transphobic attitudes towards me. It took a while though.

So no, it is utterly and factually false that transphobia doesn't exist on RevLeft.

Solidarity is something that goes in both directions. If you don't show that you really care about trans issues and queer issues in general, then you can't blame people for responding likewise to you.

Besides, being called a "chick" isn't necessarily sexist, it depends on the context, you are being "hair trigger sensitive".

[TC]

For clarification the sexism I was addressing was not about the word "chick" but Nin's statement that he'd "get down" with that "chick."

In the relevant context here, the context of a stranger in non-sexual news story who a guy declares to an audience of mostly men that he'd like to fuck based on photos that he's seen (and this is the only remark he makes about her)...its absolutely sexist. It reflects an attitude of male privilege and female objectification - the assumption that women are to be available sexually to men and only of real interest or value sexually.

"Chick" isn't inherently sexist, but when used of a stranger (and not a friend) it confers an inappropriate familiarity or intimacy, the same type people have towards children - which implies that women are again, relationally accessible. Diminutive terms of affection of women function this way: they imply both intimacy and inferiority. Calling an adult male stranger a 'boy' is rightfully recognized as degrading (this is why American southerners called black men 'boys') - because it implies diminished status. Chick is similar.

A view colored by male privilege makes how harmful these statements feel invisible because from a privileged vantage point, when one isn't objectified - the only relevant perspective evaluated is the intent and feelings of the male-as-subject.

[Ele'ill]

Just a reminder to play nice.

[Queercommie Girl]

For clarification the sexism I was addressing was not about the word "chick" but Nin's statement that he'd "get down" with that "chick."

In the relevant context here, the context of a stranger in non-sexual news story who a guy declares to an audience of mostly men that he'd like to fuck based on photos that he's seen (and this is the only remark he makes about her)...its absolutely sexist. It reflects an attitude of male privilege and female objectification - the assumption that women are to be available sexually to men and only of real interest or value sexually.

"Chick" isn't inherently sexist, but when used of a stranger (and not a friend) it confers an inappropriate familiarity or intimacy, the same type people have towards children - which implies that women are again, relationally accessible. Diminutive terms of affection of women function this way: they imply both intimacy and inferiority. Calling an adult male stranger a 'boy' is rightfully recognized as degrading (this is why American southerners called black men 'boys') - because it implies diminished status. Chick is similar.

A view colored by male privilege makes how harmful these statements feel invisible because from a privileged vantage point, when one isn't objectified - the only relevant perspective evaluated is the intent and feelings of the male-as-subject.

I thought the whole point of RevLeft is that we are all supposed to be comrades and friends ideally, no?

You criticise me because you think I come from a viewpoint in which I'm never objectified? This just shows that implicitly you still don't count trans-women as really women, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a point.

While your point in itself has some value, it's not a view held commonly among women (both cis-women and trans-women, and from all backgrounds) certainly. Many women would argue that actually feminine sexuality is not something that is intrinsically inferior at all, that to reject feminine sexuality simply because it is perceived to be more "objectivised" while masculine sexuality is more "subjectivised", is partly due to the left-overs of semi-feudal conservative cultures.

Oppression is always primarily economic and not just cultural in the abstract. Consider the phenomenon of male prostitution used by women: in mainland China today, there are male prostitutes who mainly service rich women, in Chinese slang they are called "ducks". Of course numerically speaking there are considerably less "ducks" than "chicks" - female prostitutes that service rich men.

But according to Marxist analysis, it is certain that "ducks" are the oppressed and their rich female clients are the oppressors, because that's what the economic relation of prostitution entails. The fact that during the act of sex itself, the "ducks", unlike the "chicks", are the more active and aggressive partners doesn't take away the economic oppression experienced by male prostitutes at all. The fact that rich women bend over to get fucked by "ducks" (excuse my vulgar language) does not really make "ducks" any less oppressed in the economic sense than "chicks" just because they are the sexually more aggressive partners.

Abstract cultural analysis, like saying certain "sexual positions" are inherently oppressive, (something a few Western feminists have argued) without any economic considerations, are largely useless from a Marxist perspective.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Its interesting how people can get beyond transphobic attitudes while retaining significantly sexist attitudes...

...and frankly how people on this forum have a great degree of toleration for sexism despite a hair trigger sensitivity to transphobia.
As if us transwomen like to be fetishized? :rolleyes: Fetishization is just as bad as transphobia. Pulllleeeeeeeeeeze! :rolleyes:

[TC]

As if us transwomen like to be fetishized? :rolleyes: Fetishization is just as bad as transphobia. Pulllleeeeeeeeeeze! :rolleyes:

My whole point was that while Nin was not expressing a hostile or hateful attitude towards the transwoman in the article - he was treating her as a sex object which is obviously not a good thing. It wasn't obvious to me if Nin was objectifying her anyways, in a fetishistic way or just in a sexist way.

Either way I wasn't happy with it.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

My whole point was that while Nin was not expressing a hostile or hateful attitude towards the transwoman in the article - he was treating her as a sex object which is obviously not a good thing. It wasn't obvious to me if Nin was objectifying her anyways, in a fetishistic way or just in a sexist way.

Either way I wasn't happy with it.
I was equally unhappy with it. I've faced both sexism and transphobia and it is a double hit. Also sexism directed towards a transwoman is just as hostile as if it were directed at a cis woman.

I find myself helpless towards sexism. My conditioning, I'll admit, seems to be to let men treat me that way as much as it hurts me. It leaves me feeling empty, yes, but I've learned to accept it for better or worse as much as I don't like it. I tend to be too scared to stand up to men even though deep down inside, I admire other women who do.

When you know what it feels like to have your life threatened if you are outed, objectification becomes something you are numbed to. It's survival. Just as I never liked survival sex, I've done it to survive in some cases.

In a way, transwomen get it amplified.

I think that while sexist comments don't feel good, it's not as threatening quite as scary as what happened to Gwen Araujo which is a fear that many transwomen face on a daily basis.

[khad]

I would be willing to get down with that Trans chick.
This is a verbal warning to keep this garbage out of this thread. Try it again and you will be infracted.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

You might have heard of the likes of Thomas Shankara, who was actually banned from RevLeft for his transphobic attitudes towards me. It took a while though.
Ahem, and towards me.

And yes it took a while.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I would be willing to get down with that Trans chick.
Pig!

[Magón]

Its interesting how people can get beyond transphobic attitudes while retaining significantly sexist attitudes...

...and frankly how people on this forum have a great degree of toleration for sexism despite a hair trigger sensitivity to transphobia.


This is a verbal warning to keep this garbage out of this thread. Try it again and you will be infracted.


Pig!

:confused: So because I thought she was good looking, and I would be willing to have sex with her, I'm not only somehow sexist but transphobic too? Can you all see the irony here? I could understand if I said something sexist or transphobic, but since when was saying you'd be willing to have sex with a woman/man, transexual or not, either sexist or transphobic if that person in question was a supporter of transgendered people, and against hostile sexist culture?

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people we all know in our lives who we see as attractive, but wouldn't want to have sex with. Just because I stated I'd be willing to have sex with her, doesn't make me a sexist or transphobic, it just shows I find her sexually appealing. I couldn't really say anymore about her, since I've never met her, and I'm only going off looks from the pictures. But obviously, someone who has no problem with transgender people, and isn't a sexist, is apparently a sexist and transphobic?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

:confused: So because I thought she was good looking, and I would be willing to have sex with her, I'm not only somehow sexist but transphobic too? Can you all see the irony here? I could understand if I said something sexist or transphobic, but since when was saying you'd be willing to have sex with a woman/man, transexual or not, either sexist or transphobic if that person in question was a supporter of transgendered people, and against hostile sexist culture?

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people we all know in our lives who we see as attractive, but wouldn't want to have sex with. Just because I stated I'd be willing to have sex with her, doesn't make me a sexist or transphobic, it just shows I find her sexually appealing. I couldn't really say anymore about her, since I've never met her, and I'm only going off looks from the pictures. But obviously, someone who has no problem with transgender people, and isn't a sexist, is apparently a sexist and transphobic?
I didn't call you transphobic. But the way you said that did come off as sexist and fetishizing.

[Magón]

I didn't call you transphobic. But the way you said that did come off as sexist and fetishizing.

No, but you did call me a pig, which I'm not by the way (to women or animal). Whether your a transgendered woman, or cis-gendered woman, I don't care, I love them all. I was just simply pointing out her sexual appeal in my eyes, which is all I could say about her since I don't know her. Obviously, it was read the wrong way, and people were too quick to jump on the hostile bandwagon before thinking more clearly on what my words meant.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

No, but you did call me a pig, which I'm not by the way (to women or animal). Whether your a transgendered woman, or cis-gendered woman, I don't care, I love them all. I was just simply pointing out her sexual appeal in my eyes, which is all I could say about her since I don't know her. Obviously, it was read the wrong way, and people were too quick to jump on the hostile bandwagon before thinking more clearly on what my words meant.
Well the wording could have been better.

[gorillafuck]

Well the wording could have been better.His wording expressed basically what he said in the post you just responded to. Odd thing to say, nonetheless (especially for a serious thread).

Anywho, it's progressive to give free sex change surgery but it's reactionary to force anyone to have it on the basis of being a homosexual (since they're obviously not the same thing). I don't know exactly how that works in Iran so I can't speak definitively on whether it's a progressive or reactionary policy, depends how it's applied. I am under the impression that transphobia is significantly less in the middle east than in the west, though. I know that Turkish posters have talked about that, and evidence I've come across indicates that it's true.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

His wording expressed basically what he said in the post you just responded to. Odd thing to say, nonetheless (especially for a serious thread).
I know I wished he had used the nicer wording the first time.


Anywho, it's progressive to give free sex change surgery but it's reactionary to force anyone to have it on the basis of being a homosexual (since they're obviously not the same thing). I don't know exactly how that works in Iran so I can't speak definitively on whether it's a progressive or reactionary policy, depends how it's applied. I am under the impression that transphobia is significantly less in the middle east than in the west, though. I know that Turkish posters have talked about that, and evidence I've come across indicates that it's true.
*Thanking this part.*