Pedophile Germaine Greer and the Witch Hunt of Transsexuals

[khad]

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Rogue%20Theories/Greer/Exorcism%20of%20the%20mother.html



Germaine Greer is notorious among trans women as one of the feminist vigilantes who went on an anti-transsexual rampage in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Along with feminist academic Janice Raymond (http://www.transhistory.net/history/TH_Janice_Raymond.html), author of the notorious book The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male, Greer went on a witch-hunt to find and “out” stealthy postop women.

Raymond and Greer (and their ideological followers) especially targeted trans women who had successfully obtained good employment. They went after these women without remorse, in efforts to publicly defame them, cost them their livelihoods, and force them into social marginalization (which Raymond and Greer apparently thought they deserved).

Physicist Rachel Padman (http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TSsuccesses/RachaelPadman.html) of Cambridge University became one of Greer’s special targets in 1996 (Greer ruthlessly outed and attacked Rachel in the UK tabloids). Fortunately, Rachel was really well-liked at Cambridge, and was able to survive Greer’s wrath.

Although most stealthy women in academe and the professions escaped such exposure, fear of being exposed by the Raymond-Greer witch-hunt kept many successful trans women in deep stealth during the 1980’s and 1990’s. As a result, the stories of many successful transitions in those decades never became public.Germaine Greer's other interests:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beautiful_Boy

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Bjorn-Andresen-The-Boy-Cover-by-David-Bailey-1970.jpg


The book generated some controversy because "society is not accustomed to seeing beauty in young males", Greer claims. Greer has described the book as "full of pictures of 'ravishing' pre-adult boys with hairless chests, wide-apart legs and slim waists". She goes on to say that, "I know that the only people who are supposed to like looking at pictures of boys are a subgroup of gay men," she wrote in London's Daily Telegraph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph). "Well, I'd like to reclaim for women the right to appreciate the short-lived beauty of boys, real boys, not simpering 30-year-olds with shaved chests."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beautiful_Boy#cite_note-3) She was criticized for these comments with some writers labeling her a paedophile.http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364482598.html

.
I'm not Germaine's toy, says cover boy


Australian feminist writer Germaine Greer has been accused of exploitation by the former actor whose photo appears on the cover of her controversial new book The Boy.

Bjorn Andresen says Greer did not seek his permission to use his photo on her book, which is a series of images of adolescent boys and which the 64-year-old academic has admitted might have critics labelling her a pedophile.

Andresen, who shot to fame as a 15-year-old in 1970 when he appeared as Tadzio in Luchino Visconti's film Death in Venice, was furious Greer used a photo of him taken on the set by David Bailey.

"I had no idea of this and I do not approve of it at all," Andresen, now 45, said in London. "I would have imagined someone would have had the decency to ask me about it - although, if they had, I most definitely would not have given my permission.

"I have a feeling of being utilised that is close to distasteful."

"Adult love for adolescents is something I am against in principle," Andresen told Britain's The Guardian newspaper.

"Emotionally perhaps, and intellectually I am disturbed by it, because I have some insight into what this kind of love is about."

Andresen said that when he was 16, Visconti would take him to gay clubs where he was made uncomfortable by grown men staring at him: "They looked at me uncompromisingly as if I was a nice meaty dish."

He found it odd that Greer, who had campaigned so vigorously against the exploitation of women, was using him as an object of desire: "It is ironic," he said.

[Rooster]

Is this linked to her views on feminism?

[Dimentio]

Seems like Germaine Greer was mostly motivated by her own personal desires, which she felt some kind of need to politicise.

[TC]

This is just such bullshit libel. Geramine Greer is not a "pedophile" and her principle work, The Female Eunuch, is a major contribution to feminist literature. Obviously she (or more likely her publisher) shouldn't have used someone's photo without permission, but there is nothing pedophilic about shifting social perceptions to recognize that young men can be beautiful and appreciated for it just as young women can be beautiful. The reaction here is if anything more a sexist reaction that fears a reinterpretation of male aesthetics as broader than simply the active, dominant, non-bodily agents that act on women-as-objects.

As for her supposed witch hunt of transsexuals...she may have acted in a completely wrong and unacceptable way towards a colleague at Cambridge, but I think calling her criticism of one transgendered woman (apparently as a result of her joining Cambridge's only female-only college) a generalized witch hunt is a bit hyperbolic. In any case while she might be totally wrong in this one area, it is very marginal to her research and writing and not at all a focus of her serious contributions to the women's liberation movement and feminist theory. In any case this is a a marginal and unpopular position within feminist academic and political circles. She might not be a great person, and she might be profoundly wrong on some issues, but this shouldn't be reason to dismiss her significant contributions earlier in her career.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is just such bullshit libel. Geramine Greer is not a "pedophile" and her principle work, The Female Eunuch, is a major contribution to feminist literature. Obviously she (or more likely her publisher) shouldn't have used someone's photo without permission, but there is nothing pedophilic about shifting social perceptions to recognize that young men can be beautiful and appreciated for it just as young women can be beautiful. The reaction here is if anything more a sexist reaction that fears a reinterpretation of male aesthetics as broader than simply the active, dominant, non-bodily agents that act on women-as-objects.

As for her supposed witch hunt of transsexuals...she may have acted in a completely wrong and unacceptable way towards a colleague at Cambridge, but I think calling her criticism of one transgendered woman (apparently as a result of her joining Cambridge's only female-only college) a generalized witch hunt is a bit hyperbolic. In any case while she might be totally wrong in this one area, it is very marginal to her research and writing and not at all a focus of her serious contributions to the women's liberation movement and feminist theory. In any case this is a a marginal and unpopular position within feminist academic and political circles. She might not be a great person, and she might be profoundly wrong on some issues, but this shouldn't be reason to dismiss her significant contributions earlier in her career.


I will not comment on the "beautiful boy" thing as either positive or negative, because my views towards it is largely neutral.

But to oppose a trans-woman joining a female-only college is clearly a case of transphobia, just like banning trans-women from attending a women's only music festival.

I'm not certain how general her transphobia is, but I think khad is calling her a transphobe not just over this single incident at Cambridge, but rather due to her collaboration with the transphobic feminist author Janice Raymond in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Raymond

Raymond maintains that transsexualism is based on the "patriarchal myths" of "male mothering," and "making of woman according to man's image." She claims this is done in order "to colonize feminist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist) identification, culture, politics and sexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality)," adding: "All transsexuals rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape) women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves ....


Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive."[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Raymond#cite_note-15)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Raymond#cite_note-15)
These views on transexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transexuality) have been criticized by many in the GLBT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLBT)transphobic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobic).[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Raymond#cite_note-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Raymond#cite_note-17)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Raymond#cite_note-18)[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Raymond#cite_note-19) community as well as by a number of other feminists as

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Raymond#cite_note-19)
In The Transsexual Empire Janice Raymond includes sections on Sandy Stone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Stone) a transsexual woman who had worked as a sound engineer for Olivia Records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivia_Records), and Christy Barsky, accusing both of creating divisiveness in women's spaces.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Raymond#cite_note-20) These writings have been heavily criticized as personal attacks on these individuals.

[TC]

Briefly googling, I don't see any evidence that Germaine Greer actually has anything to do with Janice Raymond except that they've been grouped together by Greer's detractors as a sort of guilt by association method. The wikipedia articles on Raymond and Greer are both devoid of any mention of the other.

[gorillafuck]

Based on her outing of transexuals it seems to me that she would be a hero of the movement for more CEO positions for straight white women.

[TC]

Based on her outing of transexuals it seems to me that she would be a hero of the bourgeois movement of more CEO positions for straight white women.

I agree that she's clearly transphobic, but she's not a pedophile which was claimed by the original poster and its not obvious to me that she was involved in any broader witch hunt (where is the evidence for that?).

[GX.]

In any case this is a a marginal and unpopular position within feminist academic and political circles.
It's not as big of a problem as it was in the 80's, but there is still a subset of radical feminism that is viciously transphobic. It is in the minority, sure, but I don't think people who have experienced discrimination from these types first hand would be so dismissive.

[Tim Finnegan]

I have no idea what the point of this topic is.

[Queercommie Girl]

I have no idea what the point of this topic is.

khad was saying that the feminist Germaine Greer is a pedophile and a transphobe.

I don't think she is an explicit pedophile, but she sure does have some transphobic views.

What do you mean by you don't know what the point of the topic is? You don't think criticising people for possibly being transphobic, pedophilic etc has a point?

[Tim Finnegan]

What do you mean by you don't know what the point of the topic is? You don't think criticising people for possibly being transphobic, pedophilic etc has a point?
I don't think that there's much point in randomly stating two unrelated criticisms (one entirely valid, the other nonsense) of an individual, without even bothering to prompt further discussion, no. I may as well post a thread that consisted of "Bakunin was anti-Semitic and had smelly armpits", for all the use it would be to anyone.

Also, "paedophile" specifically refers to attraction to pre-pubescent children, and is considered a mentalist illness. The youths depicted in Greer's book are adolescent, which make her at most an ephebophile, which is merely a sexual preference.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I don't think that there's much point in randomly stating two unrelated criticisms (one entirely valid, the other nonsense) of an individual, without even bothering to prompt further discussion, no. I may as well post a thread that consisted of "Bakunin was anti-Semitic and had smelly armpits", for all the use it would be to anyone.

Wel this could be generalized to a critique of Germaine Greer as a thinker and feminist. Also which criticism do you think was valid and which not valid?

[Tim Finnegan]

Wel this could be generalized to a critique of Germaine Greer as a thinker and feminist.
It could, but it hasn't been.


Also which criticism do you think was valid and which not valid?Greer is a transphobe, but she is not a paedophile. That's just Daily Mail-level mud-slinging, not a reasoned comment on anything, at all, ever.

[PhoenixAsh]

Also, "paedophile" specifically refers to attraction to pre-pubescent children, and is considered a mentalist illness. The youths depicted in Greer's book are adolescent, which make her at most an ephebophile, which is merely a sexual preference.

It depends on which classification scale is used. IN pure word definition that is true. In psychological and judicial definition it is not and there is no real difference between a peadophile and ephebophile.

That means that if she truely is sexually admiring boys of ages 16 and younger she classifies as a peadophile.


ergo...Khad was completely right to label her as such based on the information that she explicitly expressed she was admiring boys of the age of around 16 years and positioned them with spread legs and all. According to the psychological models...she is indeed a peadophile.

You can have debates on if that matters and if this means a lot of people have peadiphilic emotions and feelings...but the dry fact of the matter is that she fits the psychological definition.


Apart from that......personally...I think it is a real good example......

If men were to admire nudity and semi nudity photographs of underage girls....there would be a really big fuss about peadophilia and certainly there would be an investigation, job loss and even sentencing.

[Tim Finnegan]

It depends on which classification scale is used. IN pure word definition that is true. In psychological and judicial definition it is not and there is no real difference between a peadophile and ephebophile.
Actually, the distinction I made is the accepted psychological one, while paedophilia does not actually exist as a legal concept. So... Not sure what you're getting at, here.


If men were to admire nudity and semi nudity photographs of underage girls....there would be a really big fuss about peadophilia and certainly there would be an investigation, job loss and even sentencing.
Actually, y'know, I looked this up, and that's not actually what the book is. It's a history of the depiction of young males in art, from their mid-teens to mid-twenties (Kurt Cobain and Elvis both appear, for example). The only images that depict nude youths under the age of consent are paintings and status from the Classical period, and they could be freely observed in hundreds of books before hers. You are, if I my borrow an anti-feminist cliché, just looking for things to get upset about.

[khad]

If men were to admire nudity and semi nudity photographs of underage girls....there would be a really big fuss about peadophilia and certainly there would be an investigation, job loss and even sentencing.
And there you hit the nail on the head. Not only is it a double standard that female pedophilia is simply excused, but it is also a double standard that Greer could harass a transwoman into losing her job while her own obviously troubling fascinations don't even elicit so much as a raised eyebrow.

How much more obvious do you have to get when the guy whose childhood photo she used clearly stated that he doesn't want to be looked at in such a way?

This thread has illustrated this point quite well.

[Tim Finnegan]

And there you hit the nail on the head. Not only is it a double standard that female pedophilia is simply excused...
And what paedophilia would that be? As I have noted, there was none in Greer's book.


How much more obvious do you have to get when the guy whose childhood photo she used clearly stated that he doesn't want to be looked at in such a way?The picture in question is a still from the film Death In Venice, and depicts a sixteen year old. Not a "childhood photo" as I would usually use the term.

[PhoenixAsh]

Actually, the distinction I made is the accepted psychological one, while paedophilia does not actually exist as a legal concept. So... Not sure what you're getting at, here.

Actually...it is not. You gave the DSM classification...not the ICD classification....which does include prepuberty & puberty. ICD is used for clinical diagnosis and the DSM for research studies.




Actually, y'know, I looked this up, and that's not actually what the book is. It's a history of the depiction of young males in art, from their mid-teens to mid-twenties (Kurt Cobain and Elvis both appear, for example). The only images that depict nude youths under the age of consent are paintings and status from the Classical period, and they could be freely observed in hundreds of books before hers. You are, if I my borrow an anti-feminist cliché, just looking for things to get upset about.


I am not upset. I personally don't give a crap. But if you say that:


"full of pictures of 'ravishing' pre-adult boys with hairless chests, wide-apart legs and slim waists".

You are sexualising pre-adult boys. And she was talking about under age boys. That qualifies as peadophelia. Its realy only a moral judgement if you make it such.

What I do argue however...is that if a man would say such a thing about pre adult and under age girls...there would be a world of argue.

[Tim Finnegan]

Actually...it is not. You gave the DSM classification...not the ICD classification....which does include prepuberty & puberty. ICD is used for clinical diagnosis and the DSM for research studies.
I looked it up. The ICD has it down as "A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." That seems pretty in line with the DSM classification to me.

Frankly, the way you're using the word renders it useless. It doesn't actually describe anything beyond a social transgression.


I am not upset. I personally don't give a crap. But if you say that:


"full of pictures of 'ravishing' pre-adult boys with hairless chests, wide-apart legs and slim waists".You are sexualising pre-adult boys. And she was talking about under age boys. That qualifies as peadophelia."Pre-adult" is hardly equivalent to "child". I lost my virginity as a "pre-adult", as I presume posters here did, but I don't think I would have become a molestation victim if my partner had happened to be ten years older.
Paedophilia is a paraphilia because children are non-sexual entities. Adolescents, on the other hand, are not, and in fact will actively sexualise themselves given the slightest opportunity. There's a pretty obvious difference there.


Its realy only a moral judgement if you make it such.If arguing that someone has actively engaged in the propagation of paedophilia does not, for you, constitute a moral judgement, then there's something wrong with you. :confused:


What I do argue however...is that if a man would say such a thing about pre adult and under age girls...there would be a world of argue.Quite possibly.

[TC]

It depends on which classification scale is used. IN pure word definition that is true. In psychological and judicial definition it is not and there is no real difference between a peadophile and ephebophile.

That means that if she truely is sexually admiring boys of ages 16 and younger she classifies as a peadophile.

This is not true...the American legal system (and I suspect UK legal system) makes a significant distinction between sex with pubescent teenagers (statutory rape) and sex with prepubescents (child molestation). The later is a much more serious crime. Psychologists also make a significant distinction between sexually admiring post-pubescent teenagers (which is considered normal) and sexually admiring prepubescents.

In any case thoughts, sexual desires and non-pornographic/non-nude photos are never criminalised - only acts (which no one accuses Greer of) and pornographic photos (which are not contained in the book) are.

(I have actually taken Mental Health Law at law school recently but I don't really want to waste half an hour looking for citations).

Furthermore, who is to say that she is sexually admiring teenagers at all merely to point out their physical beauty? I am not sexually attracted to women but I can certainly admire female beauty and appreciate a variety of aesthetics.

[PhoenixAsh]

And there you hit the nail on the head. Not only is it a double standard that female pedophilia is simply excused, but it is also a double standard that Greer could harass a transwoman into losing her job while her own obviously troubling fascinations don't even elicit so much as a raised eyebrow.

How much more obvious do you have to get when the guy whose childhood photo she used clearly stated that he doesn't want to be looked at in such a way?

This thread has illustrated this point quite well.


Its not just in the public opinion......but also in the judicial system and language.

Women who engage in sexual activity receive much lighter sentences than men in avarage.

Underage girls who have sex with older men are "abused" and "molested" and "coerced" or "raped"...while boys are perceived as somehow being lucky, yet misguided and the women "misused her position" or "misused the trust of the parents".

I personally believe this has much to do with several views working together:

There is the idea of the good nurtering and caring mother; the idea of lessened responsibility associated with being a woman as reminiscent of the victorian bigotted idea of being creatures easilly tempted by lust and emotion; the idea of the holy virgin symbolism of innocence uncapable of evil...


Greer is actually sexualising the boys in her statement and edmitting it...and here is how she is doing that:


I know that the only people who are supposed to like looking at pictures of boys are a subgroup of gay men

So...men looking at the beauty of young boys are doing so from sexual interest. The subgroup comment actuallly means that pedophiles are gay men (interestingly...it seems that pedophilia is not always associated with preference fro either gender as a sex partner. Meaning not all men who molest boys or are sexually attracted to boys are in fact gay...nor are all pedophiles men....as she also suggested).

By stating that she wants to reclaim that...she also says its ok for women to do the same.

[PhoenixAsh]

This is not true...the American legal system (and I suspect UK legal system) makes a significant distinction between sex with pubescent teenagers (statutory rape) and sex with prepubescents (child molestation). The later is a much more serious crime. Psychologists also make a significant distinction between sexually admiring post-pubescent teenagers (which is considered normal) and sexually admiring prepubescents.


Yes...but these are not the only legal systems in the world....but I will conceede the point that not in all judicial cases in all nations the definition would apply.

However....your observation about the "sex" part as a necessity for the diagnosis of pedophilia technically incorrect. Neither ICD or DSM require that.





In any case thoughts, sexual desires and non-pornographic/non-nude photos are never criminalised - only acts (which no one accuses Greer of) and pornographic photos (which are not contained in the book) are.

(I have actually taken Mental Health Law at law school recently but I don't really want to waste half an hour looking for citations).This is not relevant for a psychological diagnosis.



Furthermore, who is to say that she is sexually admiring teenagers at all merely to point out their physical beauty? I am not sexually attracted to women but I can certainly admire female beauty and appreciate a variety of aesthetics.See my explanation above... she specifically revered to homosexual men. Indicating sexual attraction. She also refered to s specific subgroup or these homosexual men. Refering to pedophiles. she ten continued to say she wanted to reclaim that for women. Indicating sexual attraction and admiration.

Now...I do not put a value on that.

But it is sexualising...and yes...it includes underage boys qualifying her under the ICD definition of pedophelia.

Now...answer me honestly...if a man would be admiring pictures of semi-nude under age girls....what would be the reaction of the general public and would the remarks made by a man about girls be accepted or not??

[Tim Finnegan]

See my explanation above... she specifically revered to homosexual men. Indicating sexual attraction. She also refered to s specific subgroup or these homosexual men. Refering to pedophiles.
Wait, what? That's not what she was talking about! Jesus, the layers of weirdness bound up in that sentence. :blink:


But it is sexualising...and yes...it includes underage boys qualifying her under the ICD definition of pedophelia.
What is "underage", exactly? In the UK, where the book was published, it would be fifteen years old or below, but it depicts no-one that young.

[bcbm]

she specifically revered to homosexual men. Indicating sexual attraction. She also refered to s specific subgroup or these homosexual men. Refering to pedophiles.

look up "twink"

[daleckian]

Also, "paedophile" specifically refers to attraction to pre-pubescent children, and is considered a mentalist illness. The youths depicted in Greer's book are adolescent, which make her at most an ephebophile, which is merely a sexual preference.

an ephebophile is still a pedophile by any definition, since people who are adolescents, even if post-puberty, are still children since, well, you know, they're adolescents.

[Tim Finnegan]

I wonder, have any of you heard of Andrej Pejic? He's a Serbian model, age 19, known for his androgyny:

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/16700000/andrej-andrej-pejic-16747351-550-550.jpg

This is really more what Greer was talking about.

(And, no, I don't keep a catalogue of androgynous models in my head; someone just happened to tell about him the other day, and he popped into my as a potentially useful example.)


an ephebophile is still a pedophile by any definition, since people who are adolescents, even if post-puberty, are still children since, well, you know, they're adolescents.
That's an awfully idiosyncratic definition of "children". I admit there's some overlap, but, really, you're suggesting that sixteen year olds are still children?

[daleckian]

I wonder, have any of you heard of Andrej Pejic? He's a Serbian mode, age 19, known for his androgyny:

This is really more what Greer was talking about.

If that was more what Greer was talking about, then why didn't use a picture of someone that age? why did Greer take a picture of a child and use it in an unauthorized, illegal manner?

[Tim Finnegan]

If that was more what Greer was talking about, then why didn't use a picture of someone that age? why did Greer take a picture of a child and use it in an unauthorized, illegal manner?

The picture in question is a still from the film Death In Venice, and depicts a sixteen year old. Not a "childhood photo" as I would usually use the term.
Pay a-bloody-ttention.

[PhoenixAsh]

look up "twink"

...I am pretty sure she did not mean these men when she said they were the ones who typically looked at younger boys

[khad]

Pay a-bloody-ttention.

You pay a-bloody-ttention.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364482598.html

.
I'm not Germaine's toy, says cover boy


Australian feminist writer Germaine Greer has been accused of exploitation by the former actor whose photo appears on the cover of her controversial new book The Boy.

Bjorn Andresen says Greer did not seek his permission to use his photo on her book, which is a series of images of adolescent boys and which the 64-year-old academic has admitted might have critics labelling her a pedophile.

Andresen, who shot to fame as a 15-year-old in 1970 when he appeared as Tadzio in Luchino Visconti's film Death in Venice, was furious Greer used a photo of him taken on the set by David Bailey.

"I had no idea of this and I do not approve of it at all," Andresen, now 45, said in London. "I would have imagined someone would have had the decency to ask me about it - although, if they had, I most definitely would not have given my permission.

"I have a feeling of being utilised that is close to distasteful."

"Adult love for adolescents is something I am against in principle," Andresen told Britain's The Guardian newspaper.

"Emotionally perhaps, and intellectually I am disturbed by it, because I have some insight into what this kind of love is about."

Andresen said that when he was 16, Visconti would take him to gay clubs where he was made uncomfortable by grown men staring at him: "They looked at me uncompromisingly as if I was a nice meaty dish."

He found it odd that Greer, who had campaigned so vigorously against the exploitation of women, was using him as an object of desire: "It is ironic," he said.

[Blackscare]

look up "twink"

Finally I'm prepared for a thread here, I just did my own independent research on that topic earlier :D

[Tim Finnegan]

...I am pretty sure she did not mean these men when she said they were the ones who typically looked at...well..."twinks"...I guess...
BCBM meant that the "beautiful boy" archetype is well-established within gay subculture as the "twink", and is a recognised and accepted preference. Greer's intention was to establish female access to that archetype.

I'm not sure why that particular archetype was deemed so important, but my guess would be that it was a combination of personal preference and desire to side-step patriarchal norms by presenting a vision of male beauty separate from the hypermasculine varieties which tend to dominate.


You pay a-bloody-ttention.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364482598.html
I fail to see your point. Which would be par for the course in this thread.

[PhoenixAsh]

Wait, what? That's not what she was talking about! Jesus, the layers of weirdness bound up in that sentence. :blink:

What was she talking about then?



What is "underage", exactly? In the UK, where the book was published, it would be fifteen years old or below, but it depicts no-one that young.the legal age seperating childhood from adulthood. In the case of the ICD and DSM you can take anything up to pre- and early puberty. Which is 12-16 and for a purely scholastic diagnosis can include 17 depending on fenotypical traits.

[bcbm]

...I am pretty sure she did not mean these men when she said they were the ones who typically looked at younger boys

judging from her descriptions of the content of the book and the pictures, it sounds like the "subgroup of gay men" she is referring to is gay men who are attracted to twinks, not pedophiles.

[Blackscare]

BCBM meant that the "beautiful boy" archetype is well-established within gay subculture as the "twink", and is a recognised and accepted preference. Greer's intention was to establish female access to that archetype.

But sort of conflicts with this post from here that someone Khad posted:


"Well, I'd like to reclaim for women the right to appreciate the short-lived beauty of boys, real boys, not simpering 30-year-olds with shaved chests."[4]


Twinks are adult gay males who are skinny and "boyish", but not boys. So what she is referring to by "simpering 30 year olds" are basically twinks. When she talks about a "subgroup of gay men" being interested in young boys, she's not referring to twink enthusiasts, hence her talk of establishing access to the appreciation of young boys is in reference to another 'subgroup's interests.

[Tim Finnegan]

What was she talking about then?
See above.


the legal age seperating childhood from adulthood. In the case of the ICD and DSM you can take anything up to pre- and early puberty. Which is 12-16 and for a purely scholastic diagnosis can include 17 depending on fenotypical traits.Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. Age of consent laws are no relevance.

And, again, the book contained no nudes under the age of 16.


But sort of conflicts with this post from here that someone Khad posted:

"Well, I'd like to reclaim for women the right to appreciate the short-lived beauty of boys, real boys, not simpering 30-year-olds with shaved chests."Twinks are adult gay males who are skinny and "boyish", but not boys. So what she is referring to by "simpering 30 year olds" are basically twinks. When she talks about a "subgroup of gay men" being interested in young boys, she's not referring to twink enthusiasts, hence her talk of establishing access to the appreciation of young boys is in reference to another 'subgroup's interests.
I understood that as a rejection of affections of youthfulness. I'm sure there's twink-enthusiast men who feel the same.

Also, I wouldn't classify 16-20 year olds as "young boys". That's misleading language.

[bcbm]

But sort of conflicts with this post from here that someone Khad posted:

Twinks are adult gay males who are skinny and "boyish", but not boys. So what she is referring to by "simpering 30 year olds" are basically twinks. When she talks about a "subgroup of gay men" being interested in young boys, she's not referring to twink enthusiasts, hence her talk of establishing access to the appreciation of young boys is in reference to another 'subgroup's interests.

teens or men in their early twenties are the typical archetype for "twinks," and the inclusion in the book of elvis, boy george, jim morrison, etc i think makes it pretty clear this isn't about pedophilia. the lack of clear sexual content, as far as i can tell, also suggests this.

[PhoenixAsh]

BCBM meant that the "beautiful boy" archetype is well-established within gay subculture as the "twink", and is a recognised and accepted preference. Greer's intention was to establish female access to that archetype.

I'm not sure why that particular archetype was deemed so important, but my guess would be that it was a combination of personal preference and desire to side-step patriarchal norms by presenting a vision of male beauty separate from the hypermasculine varieties which tend to dominate.




Ok...

But how does 15 years equal late teens. Thats early teen at best.

Nor does it exclude thesexualisation part...since thats...well...the idea of the concept.



I fail to see your point. Which would be par for the course in this thread.

that the boy was 15....meaning that there was a picture of a boy in early/mid puberty in the book....invalidating claims that there was no picture that would fall under the heading of pedophilia in the classification sense.

[PhoenixAsh]

judging from her descriptions of the content of the book and the pictures, it sounds like the "subgroup of gay men" she is referring to is gay men who are attracted to twinks, not pedophiles.

And as she depicted at least one picture of a 15 year old...knowing that he was 15 at the time...this actually does mean that sexual fantasies would fall under the classification of pedophelia.

In fact...there is a strong case within both the DSM and ICD systems that using visual aids for sexual arousal which simulate pre- or early pubescent children can constitute a mindset of pedophelia or pedophelia in itself.

[Tim Finnegan]

Ok...

But how does 15 years equal late teens. Thats early teen at best.
Mid-teens, surely? Early teens would be around 12/13, around the on-set of puberty.


Nor does it exclude thesexualisation part...since thats...well...the idea of the concept.I'm not sure what you mean.


that the boy was 15....meaning that there was a picture of a boy in early/mid puberty in the book....invalidating claims that there was no picture that would fall under the heading of pedophilia in the classification sense.Sixteen, actually. And even if he was fifteen, it would still only be "paedophilia" by your idiosyncratic, useless measure, and so wouldn't really mean anything.

Anyway, do none of you people actually know how publishing works? The author doesn't select the cover, the publisher does, at most consulting with the author. It's marketing, after all, not something that is left up to mere amateurs. It seems pretty clear that the publisher picked a boy from the young-end of the range focused on by Greer- and one who, arguably, looks even younger- for the sake of impact. A picture of a 21-year old Elvis Presley wouldn't've made quite the same statement.

[PhoenixAsh]

See above.

Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. Age of consent laws are no relevance.

And, again, the book contained no nudes under the age of 16.

I have never claimed taht age of consent laws are relevant.

Nudity is not required for pedophelia. The book however did include at least one 15 year old...see link form Khad.



I understood that as a rejection of affections of youthfulness. I'm sure there's twink-enthusiast men who feel the same.

Yes...and when that "affection" means sexual arousal or implies sexual fantasies or sexual admiration and concerns pre- or early pubescent children....it falls under the definition of pedophelia.

Its that simple. THe whole argument is a value argument from a moralistic connotation of pedophelia being bad in all cases. Which I am not claiming nor do I adher any value to people admiring, even in a sexual way, children in puberty.


Also, I wouldn't classify 16-20 year olds as "young boys". That's misleading language.

Hmm....yeah....but I do. Since 16 in Holland is still a child. Our laws state 18 is the age of adulthood.

And since the book did contain boys younger than 16 years old...I think young boys is exactly warranted.

[Blackscare]

teens or men in their early twenties are the typical archetype for "twinks,"

This is true, but still most of them will have to shave their chests and do other things to accentuate more feminine/boyish characteristics. The point is basically the same. Underage people are never regarded as twinks AFAIK, it's always guys age 18-25ish. Under 18 would just be "boys".

Anyway, I'm not saying she's a pedophile, I'm just saying that what she is referring to is not what is commonly referred to as a "twink" in the gay community. She is talking about boys around the age of 16.

[daleckian]

I fail to see your point. Which would be par for the course in this thread.

the child was exploited, I'd argue illegally, since his image was used without his consent, in a book meant to arouse (if I had a nickel every time one of those books was passed off as "art").

[Tim Finnegan]

I have never claimed taht age of consent laws are relevant.

Nudity is not required for pedophelia. The book however did include at least one 15 year old...see link form Khad.
I did some digging, and it turns out nobody's quite sure what age he was at the time. The film was released a few months after he turned 16, but it's not certain if he had turned 16 at the time of the photo.


Yes...and when that "affection" means sexual arousal or implies sexual fantasies or sexual admiration and concerns pre- or early pubescent children....it falls under the definition of pedophelia.Late-teenagers are hardly "early pubescent". Even at his youngest, the cover subject was still squarely in his mid-pubescence.


Its that simple. THe whole argument is a value argument from a moralistic connotation of pedophelia being bad in all cases. Which I am not claiming nor do I adher any value to people admiring, even in a sexual way, children in puberty.It's not an argument about the morality of paedophilia- how can one assign moral value to a psychiatric disorder?- but of the active propagation of paedophilia, which you accuse Greer of participating in.


Hmm....yeah....but I do. Since 16 in Holland is still a child. Our laws state 18 is the age of adulthood.You're conflating "minor" with "child". The former is a legal concept, the latter a social and cultural one.


And since the book did contain boys younger than 16 years old...I think young boys is exactly warranted.A single, non-sexualised image of a boy of uncertain age is hardly the paedophilic wank-fest you seemed to envision.


This is true, but still most of them will have to shave their chests and do other things to accentuate more feminine/boyish characteristics. The point is basically the same. Underage people are never regarded as twinks AFAIK, it's always guys age 18-25ish. Under 18 would just be "boys".
But it's that 18-25 set that Greer is addressing. Elvis Presley features in the book, for example, and there are very few pictures of him- none "beautiful", certainly- taken before he became famous at the age of 21.


Anyway, I'm not saying she's a pedophile, I'm just saying that what she is referring to is not what is commonly referred to as a "twink" in the gay community. She is talking about boys around the age of 16.That was just the cover, which, as I mentioned, is not representative of her project.

[PhoenixAsh]

Mid-teens, surely? Early teens would be around 12/13, around the on-set of puberty.

Not surely...but if it makes you happy...we can call it mid teens. We can however not call it anything other than early-puberty. which ranges from 12/13 to 15/16



Sixteen, actually. And even if he was fifteen, it would still only be "paedophilia" by your idiosyncratic, useless measure, and so wouldn't really mean anything.

yes...actually it would mean everything since ICD is only the system used by 80% of the psychiatric and clinical diagnosis and is considered to be leading according to the WHO....and which is going to be adopted in the DSM-V making it the only psychological classification of pedophelia used in psychology and psychiatry which is officially and ingternationally recognized.

But yes....idiosyncratic and useless and doesn;t mean anything...




Anyway, do none of you people actually know how publishing works? The author doesn't select the cover, the publisher does, at most consulting with the author. It's marketing, after all, not something that is left up to mere amateurs. It seems pretty clear that the publisher picked a boy from the young-end of the range focused on by Greer- and one who, arguably, looks even younger- for the sake of impact. A picture of a 21-year old Elvis Presley wouldn't've made quite the same statement.

Well....since I have worked with a lot of publishers this certainly CAN be the case. Mostly the author gives a form of consent with the proposal.

In the case of Greer I can not immagine she would, being very well known and famous, have anything less than full controll....not to mention legal responsibility.

But that all does not matter much...as it is not what is published but what is intended which is the subject of the debate. And self chosen or not...its clear that its pretty much understood that the idea behind the book was about selling the young look...which also includes early pubescent children.

[bcbm]

This is true, but still most of them will have to shave their chests and do other things to accentuate more feminine/boyish characteristics. The point is basically the same. Underage people are never regarded as twinks AFAIK, it's always guys age 18-25ish. Under 18 would just be "boys".

if we're talking about from a strictly sexual pursuit of twinks, no i would imagine that its "always" guys 18-25ish, but for the purpose of appreciating beauty in young males, i don't think that limitation necessarily applies. i mean i think the guy on the cover could pretty easily be considered a "twink" by conventional standards.


Anyway, I'm not saying she's a pedophile, I'm just saying that what she is referring to is not what is commonly referred to as a "twink" in the gay community. She is talking about boys around the age of 16.i can't find anything from inside the book online (i didn't look very hard) but it doesn't seem to have a specific focus on boys around the age of 16, but simply young males generally (again the inclusion of elvis, jim morrison, robert plant, etc). i guess i can't say for sure without seeing the book but this is my impression. maybe it isn't exclusively the twink community she means, but i think you'd agree that seems a closer guess than pedophiles.

[GX.]

teens or men in their early twenties are the typical archetype for "twinks," and the inclusion in the book of elvis, boy george, jim morrison, etc i think makes it pretty clear this isn't about pedophilia. the lack of clear sexual content, as far as i can tell, also suggests this.
Yeah, really, I don't see the problem here. There are a lot of good reasons to dislike Germaine Greer (even aside from all the trans hate, let's just say she has a flair for the dramatic) but this isn't one of them.

[Tim Finnegan]

@Hindsight, why are you stuck on this notion that 16-25 year olds are "early pubescent"? We're really not going to advance one inch until you can overcome that.

[PhoenixAsh]

I did some digging, and it turns out nobody's quite sure what age he was at the time. The film was released a few months after he turned 16, but it's not certain if he had turned 16 at the time of the photo.

he was 15 at the set...the foto is from the set. Now I can understand confusion...and it really doesn't matter what age he was. The intent however is clear.



Late-teenagers are hardly "early pubescent". Even at his youngest, the cover subject was still squarely in his mid-pubescence.

No...he isn't. do not try to make a median out of everything. Its solidly defined...as I have stated before sexual arousal or admiration of boys and girls of ages up to and including 16 are diagnosable under ICD and DSM as pedophelia...and it can even include 17 year olds depending on fenotype in a purely academic sense for the same diagnosis.



It's not an argument about the morality of paedophilia- how can one assign moral value to a psychiatric disorder?- but of the active propagation of paedophilia, which you accuse Greer of participating in.


Yes...beacuse she is. I accuse her because that is exactly what she is doing. You attacking me over it is attacking the messenger,

Now...once again...IF a man had said exactly the same things about a young girl...what would have been the outcome? what do YOU think happens when an adult is found with nudes and semi-nudes of young girls on his computer....much less publishing a book of underage girls.



You're conflating "minor" with "child". The former is a legal concept, the latter a social and cultural one.[quote]

Minor and Child are both legal terms....as they both depend on jurisdiction.


[quote]
A single, non-sexualised image of a boy of uncertain age is hardly the paedophilic wank-fest you seemed to envision.


No...I am not. I am however saying that what she stated about it in combination with that book and with that picture clearly do conform with ICD and DSM.

[PhoenixAsh]

@Hindsight, why are you stuck on this notion that 16-25 year olds are "early pubescent"? We're really not going to advance one inch until you can overcome that.

yeah...because the boy was 15. It is all about intent and it still fits the definition of ICD and DSM-V...

[Tim Finnegan]

I am grinding my face into the keyboard right now.

[daleckian]

I am grinding my face into the keyboard right now.

what you should do is grind your screen with a magnet...I heard that relieves stress quite a bit.

[PhoenixAsh]

All spoils are my comments, all bold emphasize is added by me.






"The only way a man can get rid of healthy genitals is to say that he is convinced that he is a woman. Then another man will remove them and gladly. In order to justify sex-change surgery a new disorder called gender dysphoria has come into being. The disease has no biological marker; its presence is discerned by a history of inappropriately gendered behaviour, social disability and affective disorder. . . .perhaps that is the case. That does not mean it is not genuine and pressing....and there definately is a solution. A solution which you...in all your false equality rethorics want to impose to be the new repressed gender


Governments that consist of very few women have hurried to recognize as women men who believe that they are women and have had themselves castrated to prove it, because they see women not as another sex but as a non-sex. No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight.Ah....how very convenient. So you argue for abortions...but when transsexuals do not want wombs and ovaries (is that even possible to tramsplant working ovaries??) this choice means something? The insistence that manmade women be accepted as women is the institutional expression of the mistaken conviction that women are defective males. The biological truth is the opposite; all biologists know that males are defective females. No...in fact all biologists know men and women are biological specific necessities as each others counter parts in non hermaphrodite species. All biologists know that certain gender expressions in men develop differently...but...only misandrics would call it "defective" as if something went wrong in design rather than the outcome being the design.



It also points out to the Y-gene "missing" a leg. Unfortunately...would one be as stupid as this one could offcourse reverse the argument and point out that mens gender expression is advancing on the development of female gender expression. Its asinine and stupid.



Both men and women are specific designs. Neither is defective.





Though external genitalia are the expression of the chromosomal defect, I think its now very, very clear that Greer is in fact misandric and utterly sexist. calling men defective species, with defect chromosomes can only be explained by a deep seeded hatred of men...this is not done on any other basis but on their gender ualification. their removal will not alter the chromosomal fact, any more than removal of the tails of puppies will produce a tailless breed. "Sex-change operations" can only be carried out in Swift's Laputa. As Dwight D. Billings and Robert Urban argued in 1982:
Transsexualism is a relational process sustained in medical practice and marketed in public testimony ... The legitimization, rationalization and commodification of sex-change operations have produced an identity category—transsexual—for a diverse group of sexual deviants and victims of severe gender role distress.
As sufferers from gender role distress themselves, women must sympathize with transsexuals but a feminist must argue that the treatment for gender role distress is not mutilation of the sufferer but radical change of gender roles. Throughout their history women who could not carry out their prescribed gender roles have suffered all kinds of ghastly gynecological procedures and, like transsexuals, they have been grateful to their abusers. Women could hardly now condone the elaborate mutilations practised on individuals of both sexes, even though the victims argue that such mutilations are their right.

Sex-change surgery is profoundly conservative in that it reinforces sharply contrasting gender roles by shaping individuals to fit them. . . .

No one ever asked women if they recognized sex-change males as belonging to their sex or considered whether being obliged to accept MTF transsexuals as women was at all damaging to their identity or self-esteem. one has to ask...what about the reverse?

As far as anyone could tell, women did not mind calling sex-change males "she." Perhaps this development should have been resisted, because it was part of the definition of the female as "other," as simply the "not-male." Femaleness is not the other side of the Rorschach blot of maleness, but a sex of its own, with a sexuality of its own and a whole spectrum of possible expressions, many of which take no account of maleness at all. Woman is not placed on earth for the use of man any more than men are placed on earth for the use of women. Both could do without each other if it were not for the pesky business of sexual reproduction. . . .

A good-hearted woman is not supposed to mind that her sex is the catch-all for all cases of gender ambiguity, but her tolerance of spurious femaleness, her consent to treat it as if it is the same as her own gender identity weakens her claim to have a sex of her own and tacitly supports the Freudian stereotype of women as incomplete beings defined by their lack of a penis. Women's lack of choosiness about who may be called a woman strengthens the impression that women do not see their sex as quite real, and suggests that perhaps they too identify themselves as the not-male, the other, any other. . . .No...I think that is definately only in the brain of a deranged individual who thinks gender should matter eventhough she supposedly argues for equality. what diffrence does it make if we accept transgendered people of either sex as men and women if they so choose to be designated....if we are all supposed to be equal. Ahh....but there lies the catch. Greeg is in fact not arguing for equality. She is actually calling for female superiority. Naming men defunctional women, genetically damaged...and in other texts designating them as oppressors, would be rapists and betrayers of mothers and sisters incapable to have consentual non-coercive sex.

The transsexual is identified as such solely on his/her own script, which can be as learned as any sex-typed behaviour and as editorialized as autobiographies usually are. The lack of insight that MTF transsexu¬als usually show about the extent of their acceptance as females should be an indication that their behaviour is less rational than it seems. There is a witness to the transsexual's script, a witness who is never consulted. She is the person who built the transsexual's body of her own flesh and brought it up as her son or daughter, the transsexual's worst enemy, his/her mother. Whatever else it is gender reassignment is an exorcism of the mother. no...infact you have completely NO idea what yo are taklking about. A woman does NOT build a new human out of her own flesh...its called devision of cells. An egg is NOT flesh. Its a cell. And even IF you would consider an egg to be flesh....it also requires sperm. So the conclusion that sex change is an exorcism of the mother is completely baseless inciteful speech and rethorics to somehow villify transgender people



When a man decides to spend his life impersonating his mother (like Norman Bates in Psycho) it is as if he murders her and gets away with it, proving at a stroke that there was nothing to her. His intentions are no more honourable than any female impersonator's; his achievement is to gag all those who would call his bluff. When he forces his way into the few private spaces women may enjoy and shouts down their objections, and bombards the women who will not accept him with threats and hate mail, he does as rapists have always done." Wasn't the patriarchy the enemy? Not men as individuals? Isn't it a fact that transgendered women are not accepted as men by not transsexual men and are thus not part of the patriarchy?


Ah...but thats the case now isn't it? You do not see the patriarchy as the enemy...you see men as the enemy. This isn't about equality. This is about segregation. There are...in your mind...places women as a gender should have for themselves, men as a gender should have for themselves and nobody else is allowed into these spaces


- Germaine Greer


God...this woman is crazy, reactionary, sexist, misandric and hateful. Now...this article was written in 2000 (or around that time) and one may think her disgusting believes may have altered a bit. The opposite is true...she is a s spiteful and hateful as ever. In 2009 she restated all above arguments again in an article by the forced gender testing of athlete Semenya.

[Tim Finnegan]

Ah, so we're back to the original topic of whinging about some individual crank as it matters? Good, good.

[Queercommie Girl]

Greer:

Governments that consist of very few women have hurried to recognize as women men who believe that they are women and have had themselves castrated to prove it, because they see women not as another sex but as a non-sex. No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight.
This isn't even factually true. If it were potentially possible (perhaps it will indeed be possible in the future as technology advances more), I'm sure many MtFs would want to have female reproductive capability, and not just a female appearance.

Personally, I've thought about having children as a woman. But with our current level of 21st century technology, it's simply not possible.

Greer is talking BS. She seems to think all MtFs are just men who are obsessed with a stereotypical image of "being a woman". This is ridiculous. MtFs are not "drag queens". Many MtFs aren't even very "feminine" in the stereotypical sense. There are some MtFs who are actually quite "tomboyish".

[PhoenixAsh]

Ah, so we're back to the original topic of whinging about some individual crank as it matters? Good, good.

Yes. It matters because she is considered to be a very influential feminst.

And she concluded recently that the liberation of women does not proceed. Now...as much as we may agree with her....that did not lead her to reevaluate her arguments and ideas. No...that made her conclude that women and men should live seperate from each other as much as possible.

[Queercommie Girl]

Ah, so we're back to the original topic of whinging about some individual crank as it matters? Good, good.

Greer isn't just an "individual crank" though. She is a famous feminist, and therefore her transphobic views do matter, because many people listen to her. Therefore it is important for people to counter her transphobic views. Greer isn't just a random transphobic blog online.

[PhoenixAsh]

Ha..no I have no such illusions. I am very much against the part of radical feminism which is so radical that it becomes reactionary in its own sense.

I think its harmful for feminism, radical feminbism, class struggle and womens equality. I see these people just as much as enemies of the revolution as the next burgeoisie collaborator.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well, I seem to have ninja-deleted my last post, which I did because, as you're probably aware, it was stupid. Now, to try again with manners...


Yes. It matters because she is considered to be a very influential feminst.
Fair point. I'm afraid I'll have to apologise; the inaneness of the OP seems to have put me in a sour mood.


And she concluded recently that the liberation of women does not proceed. Now...as much as we may agree with her....that did not lead her to reevaluate her arguments and ideas. No...that made her conclude that women and men should live seperate from each other as much as possible.Yes, but that's hardly a novel idea in Radical Feminism. She's just parroting what has been said a thousand times before, and a relatively mild version of it.


Greer isn't just an "individual crank" though. She is a famous feminist, and therefore her transphobic views do matter, because many people listen to her. Therefore it is important for people to counter her transphobic views. Greer isn't just a random transphobic blog online.
True, true. As I said, the lack of substantial criticism up until that point had rubbed me the wrong way. Not that it excuses me from refusing to take my head out of my arse when such criticism does appear, of course.

[khad]

Well, I seem to have ninja-deleted my last post, which I did because, as you're probably aware, it was stupid. Now, to try again with manners...


Fair point. I'm afraid I'll have to apologise; the inaneness of the OP seems to have put me in a sour mood.
Quit blaming others for your own shortcomings.

[Tim Finnegan]

Quit blaming others for your own shortcomings.
Not blaming, just explaining. As I said, I recognise that there's no excuse for asininity.

[GX.]

All spoils are my comments, all bold emphasize is added by me.





[/I]


God...this woman is crazy, reactionary, sexist, misandric and hateful. Now...this article was written in 2000 (or around that time) and one may think her disgusting believes may have altered a bit. The opposite is true...she is a s spiteful and hateful as ever. In 2009 she restated all above arguments again in an article by the forced gender testing of athlete Semenya.
This kind of thinking isn't original, it ran through second wave feminism unfortunately. It's what Linda Nicholson called biological foundationalism: it's not strict biological essentialism because it assumes some social determination of gender. But the underlying foundation of gender is still seen to be the body, biological sex. There are just too many exceptions that it doesn't account for, and it can only get around them by denying that they are exceptions at all, i.e. by saying that there is no gender separate from biological sex. This just returns to the very concept (essentialism) that it purports to refute. It's a completely incoherent argument. There is no point in taking this stuff seriously, it's a crappy rationalization of prejudice. It never even occurs to the people who make these kind of arguments, despite all the well-documented violence against trans people, that policing gender against them might just be harmful. or else they don't care.

[PhoenixAsh]

This kind of thinking isn't original, it ran through second wave feminism unfortunately. It's what Linda Nicholson called biological foundationalism: it's not strict biological essentialism because it assumes some social determination of gender. But the underlying foundation of gender is still seen to be the body, biological sex. There are just too many exceptions that it doesn't account for, and it can only get around them by denying that they are exceptions at all, i.e. by saying that there is no gender separate from biological sex. This just returns to the very concept (essentialism) that it purports to refute. It's a completely incoherent argument. There is no point in taking this stuff seriously, it's a crappy rationalization of prejudice. It never even occurs to the people who make these kind of arguments, despite all the well-documented violence against trans people, that policing gender against them might just be harmful. or else they don't care.

I think that is a very good analysis. But its the reduction of gender to genotypical and fenotypical expressions that is something that sounds logical to a lot of people....and unfortunately it is being taken seriously by a lot of people.

Its important to deconstruct the idea and concept and debunk its conlcusions so that the people who do take it seriously can be confronted with logical and well constructed counter arguments.

[bcbm]

And as she depicted at least one picture of a 15 year old...knowing that he was 15 at the time...this actually does mean that sexual fantasies would fall under the classification of pedophelia.

In fact...there is a strong case within both the DSM and ICD systems that using visual aids for sexual arousal which simulate pre- or early pubescent children can constitute a mindset of pedophelia or pedophelia in itself.

where did she say anything about visual aids for sexual arousal?

and 15 is neither "pre" nor "early" pubescent

[Agnapostate]

Is this some sort of organized tendency? I've heard similar comments about Gayle Rubin and Camille Paglia.

[PhoenixAsh]

where did she say anything about visual aids for sexual arousal?

Where did she not say it?



and 15 is neither "pre" nor "early" pubescent


Seeing as in many boys puberty sets on at 13...yeah...I kinda disagree.

[Tim Finnegan]

Where did she not say it?
What.