Below is my (second) response to Sungold’s accusation on Kittywampus that my “Ten Reasons to Suspect You’re Not the Fun Kind of Feminist” post was “transphobic”. You can read my inital response and Sungold’s reply here.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree, Sungold. While I understand the decision to undergo sex-reassignment surgery, to say that I “recognize a place for sex- reassingment surgery” is a slight mischaracterization of my position. I understand sex-reassignment surgery to be a harmful cultural practice and the last resort available to make life liveable for people in a toxic culture.
I stand by my use of the term “cosmetic”, though “double mastectomy for reasons unrelated to cancer” is probably a little clearer. I personally don’t think that you can isolate the permanent and mandatory condition of body dysphoria from which most women suffer (to a greater or lesser degree) under patriarchy, the surgical erasure of lesbians and homosexuals and transvestic fetishism from “transsexualism”. I think they are related, intersect with one another, and need to be analyzed as such. I also believe that one can acknowledge and respect the lived experience of transpeople without evacuating politics from the discussion; that one can be compassionate and respect transpeople’s human rights without leaving one’s critical faculties at the door.
You wrote:
Using the term “cisgendered” doesn’t mean I’m signing onto a purely biologized conception of gender. Instead, it decenters my own experience of an easy match between body and gender, and thus helps make space for the lived experiences of trans people. Refusing the term cisgendered disrespects the needs of trans people to shake up the idea only cisgendered people are “normal.”
I am against using the term “cisgendered” for similar reasons. Cis/trans is a binary distinction that dovetails nicely with the male/female dichotomy. It’s problematic because it invisibilizes the social construction of gender by enforcing a rigid distinction between the experiences of transsexuals and biological men and women, including the experience of gender non-conforming people. In terms of lived experience, I think a continuum model would be more appropriate. I don’t believe that the majority of “cisgendered” men or women experience the kind of congruence between body and gender that you describe. If they did, there wouldn’t be so many social conventions and prohibitions whose sole purpose is to clearly demarcate men from women. Simone de Beauvoir’s famous dictum that one is not born but becomes a woman seems appropriate here.
Another problem with the cis/trans binary is that it invisibilizes the heirarchical nature of gender roles whereby femininity is assigned a subordinate position and masculinity a dominant one. This is notable because the term “cisgender” is typically used in the context of acknowledging one’s “cis privilege”. The idea of “cis privilege” is problematic because it doesn’t take into consideration other variables such as the considerable privileges accrued by MTFs who undergo sex-ressassignment surgery lin later life. It’s main problem, however is that it creates the illusion of parity between male and female sex-roles. The common denominator and motivating force behind transphobic violence and discrimination is disdain for women. The cis/trans distinction doesn’t adequately reflect that. ( Just as a side note, why, for example, are there overwhelmingly more MTF transsexuals in systems of prostitution than FTMs?)
Another example is that of butch/femme relationships within lesbian culture. The “butch” may suffer discrimination and violence because she does not “pass” and in this respect, her “femme” (read: gender-conforming) partner is privileged. However, to the extent to which traditional heterosexuality is imported wholesale into lesbian relationships “butches” are privileged, at least within the confines of their relationship. This is because masculinity corresponds to the privileges which are assigned to the political class “men”, the dominant class under heteropatriarchy.
I suspect that you’ll disagree with (and possibly be offended by) my analysis. That’s okay; I’m happy to agree to disagree. The disagreements between some transsexuals and some radical feminists are sufficiently well-rehearsed not to need repeating here. Thank you for responding to my post. I have read Lisa Harney’s post in its entirety a couple of times. For a different (lesbian feminist) perspective I would recommend one of Amy’s old posts over at feminist reprise: http://www.feminist-reprise.org/wpblog/2007/01/wading-in-or-how-easily-002-becomes-a-pocketful-o-quarters/
That’s me weighing out.
24 Comments
July 2, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I feel a lot of radfem’s objections to trans politics and “cisgendered” would be avoided if trans peeps recognised that women who are fine being in “women’s” bodies are cissexed, but not usually cisgendered. Trans activists need to stop conflating sex and gender this way, which they complain about others doing. Especially radfems; we ain’t cisgendered! It is our rejection of gender, gender roles, and demonstrating lack of gender conformity which proves that. I will concede we are cissexed tho, which is true.
July 3, 2009 at 6:10 am
redmegaera, I’m so sorry to see that you’ve been accused of transphobia! I think it’s a real shame that opposing surgery when it’s not medically necessary is labeled HATING! It’s actually a desire for ALL people to feel socially accepted and comfortable in WHATEVER body they’re born into, no matter how their brain works or their personality flows, withOUT the need for surgical interventions and drugs to “correct” anything– because nothing is wrong with the person, it’s wrong with SOCIETY.
Reinforcing the gender binary is NOT a shared interest of radfems and transsexuals, as Sungold states. Not at all.
Furthermore, I fully agree that the harmonious relationship between biology and sex roles that transadvocates believe “cisgendered” people experience is not particularly common among radfems. Personally, I have struggled with the construction of femininity all my life– beginning around age 5 (or before, that’s just as far back as my memory of identity ownership goes!). I’ve always enjoyed the costuming of femininity and I’m more comfortable with it now than I’ve ever been; but I’ve also been blessed with the liberty of being able to change and experiment with my aesthetic expression. I’ve been super feminine and semi-masculine/androgynous. Neither is totally ME. I need a certain amount of fluidity to my appearance in order to feel truly comfortable. Strict conformity to sex roles makes me feel oppressed. Therefore, reinforcing them, supporting the idea that they are “natural,” is NOT in my best interests. How does this get lost in the discussion of gender identity?!?
July 3, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Thanks for your thoughts, demonista.
Undercover Punk: I totally agree. Unsubstantiated accusations of “transphobia” count as another reason to suspect you’re not the fun kind of feminist.
Personally I think the social conventions and prohibitions that enforce the heirarchical opposition between men and women (i.e. gender) and the fact that most people don’t feel a complete congruence between their bodies and their sense of self (as implied by the term “cisgendered”) is strong evidence of gender’s artificiality. This is what I was getting at when I talked about a “continuum model”. A continuum of patriarchally-imposed body dysphoria rather than, as Sungold interpreted it, a gender continuum. Radical feminists want, as demonist said, to reject gender, not reify it. I think the comparison (which I made in my first post) between MTFs and men with gynecomastia is one worth exploring in relation to this.
I also think there is a link between the way transsexualism is conceptualized and the way, for example, weight-loss/fatness is constructed in this culture. They’re both based on a kind of pimped-up Cartesian dualism, they both personalize and depoliticize oppression, they both are medicalized. There’s a feminist who’s written on the parallels between the medical construction of transsexuality, fatness and cosmetic surgery….I just can’t think of her name. A professor recommended her to me.
Lastly, what I find most interesting about these debates between radical feminists and transpeople is the conspicuous absence of FTMs. Why is that? Personally, like lesbianism and male homosexuality, I don’t think MTFs and FTMs are natural allies and even though they both use the same language to conceptualize their experiences, I don’t think MTF transsexuality and FTM transsexuality are the same thing. One of the reasons for this is patriarchy and male privilege, the other is the fact that, while pre-operative MTFs are neither predominantly hetero- or homosexual, almost ALL pre-operative FTMs are lesbians and become “heterosexuals” after transition.
July 5, 2009 at 1:46 am
The first thing you need to understand is Harney is a professional victim who screams “transphobia” at the drop of feminist discussion on almost anything. It’s best to ignore Harney and company.
The whole “cis” thing is problematic for those born with transsexuality (as opposed to those who screw with concepts of gender) because it sets up mental state that assures one never with actually transition. How can you embrace a woman identity if women are the enemy?
Transmen do, in fact, come in the full spectrum of sexual orientations. I know personally many gay male identified post-transitional FtMs. Sorry, they tend to keep a low profile so they aren’t noticed much but they are out there and approximately 10-15% of FtMs.
On gender identity vs gender roles. They are two completely different things. It’s hard for a non-transsexual woman to get the gender identity part because, well, regardless of your comfort with gender roles, an internal sense of one’s self as male of female is as natural to most folks as water to a fish…..take the fish out of water and then it’s a different story. Gender roles, on the other hand, are those non-biological differences imposed by society. Frankly, in long discussions with many radfems I’ve come to the conclusion almost all are quite comfortable with their gender identities to the point they never even think about it but chaff at the gender roles. So do most feminists, myself included.
The cis thing also becomes problematic when a woman of transsexual or intersexed history is concerned. I maintain that once corrected and congruence between soul and body is achieved, one is “cissexual” and cisgendered” for whatever those concepts are worth, Harney claims once trans, always trans which indicates to me Harney will never actually be a woman.
July 8, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Thanks for your thoughtful response, catkisser.
I agree that the cis/trans dichotomy seems counterproductive.
I appreciate the fact that transmen “come in the full spectrum of sexual orientations” but it’s my understanding that the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals among post-operative MTF transsexuals is significantly more biased toward homosexuals compared to FTMs. Your estimation that 10-15% of MTFs identify as “gay” seems to support this.
On gender roles vs. gender identity: I’m not sure they’re so different. It’s very difficult to separate them or tease them apart- both in the diagnostic criteria for gender identity disorder and in the everyday experiences and stories of transsexual and non-transsexuals under patriarchy.
Even if you limit transsexuality to discomfort with one’s own body, many women’s discomfort with gender roles extends to encompass a discomfort with their own developing bodies during puberty- with developing breasts and the onset of menstruation. Healthy men with gynecomastia undergo all sorts of treatment, including surgery, because they don’t feel like men if their mamory glands are statistically abnormal for their sex. This experience is more or less transitory, more or less chronic depending on the woman or man. Where do you draw the line when medicalizing this discomfort? Also, I’d be curious to know what you think of Sheila Jeffrey’s comparing transsexuality to body integrity identity disorder/ amputee identity disorder?
I don’t want to deny the lived experience of transsexuality but I’m not entirely conviced that it is separate from political construction of gender.
July 6, 2009 at 1:37 am
I think that being a radfem, almost by definition, requires a commitment to and comfortability with the gender identity of female. Why else would one be so radically committed to and interested in deconstructing female subordination? I am one hundred percent female, yet NOT cisgendered, and NOT committed to female sex roles. I do not, will not, embody the patriarchal definition of female. But I also will not be denied my femininity, for I have been made to suffer for it.
redmegaera, I am again in complete agreement with your assessment of MtF and FtM. The social meaning of the transition is as different as gay men and lesbians!
Really, where ARE the FtMs in these conversations about transsexuality and privilege? I accept that a small portion of FtMs are gay (or remain gay?) after their transition– but again, gay men and lesbians are very different social experiences! It doesn’t, however, explain the overriding Rule of Heterosexuality. The absence of their voice in feminist discussions only supports radfem allegations of misogyny. After transitioning, these individuals no longer have an interest in female oppression. They have escaped. They have transcended the ranks of the sex class and they aren’t looking back! Nothing is showing me otherwise. It’s very depressing.
July 7, 2009 at 7:07 am
[...] redmegeara is definitely not “cisgendered”. [...]
July 10, 2009 at 3:47 am
Ok, I’m posting HERE, where it’s relevant!! I really don’t understand why THAT PERSON cannot post her criticisms on the appropriate blog, under the actual post she objects to!! It’s very passive aggressive. You do not have to publish this comment b/c I am starting trouble (again!!) and I am just *too* annoyed to bite my tongue.
Secondly, butch/femme relationships do NOT always, but undeniably DO mirror male/female heterosexual power dynamics and sex roles. I truly do not understand how anyone can argue that this is not the case, historically or presently! I mean, the very definitions of butch and femme are modeled after archetypal gender norms! (or at LEAST the appearance thereof) I find that most protests citing exceptions in support of an opposing viewpoint are just veiled attempts at being antagonistic and unnecessarily contentious. We could find an exception to the LAW of gravity, ffs!!
Ok, that’s all. Thank you.
July 10, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Yeah I’m not sure why she didn’t post here, especially since I wasn’t involved in any of the aforementioned arguments. Guilty by association, I guess.
Re: butch/femme I also think there’s a difference between women who reject femininity and/or patriarchal beauty norms (which might erroneously be labled “masculine” by patriarchal society) and women who deliberately model themselves and their relationships after archetypal male/female sex roles. Having cropped hair, a moustache and hairy legs doesn’t make me “butch” or “masculine”! Any more than wearing lip gloss and the occasional embroidered shirt makes me “feminine”!
Anyway, I addressed most of her criticisms on Cath’s blog so I won’t repeat them here. But yeah, particularly where role-playing’s concerned, I totally agree. (Just for something new!)
July 11, 2009 at 2:05 am
Please excuse me using my own situation as a test case.
I think it’s useful to draw a distinction between Transgendered and Transsexual. The corollary is that it would be useful to draw a distinction between the opposites – cisgendered and cissexual.
But then it gets complicated.
As regards cissexual – there’s no way that anyone who was (mis)diagnosed as an Intersexed male in 1985, and re-diagnosed as an Intersexed female in 2005 could be considered cissexual. Transsexual is close enough, even if the change was mostly the result of natural causes, just as it is in 5ARD and 17BHDD syndromes.
Cisgendered though…. I fit really well into the standard gender binary model. Now I know that that model is only an approximation, that while it may be adequate for the majority of human beings on the planet, it fits poorly for some, and doesn’t remotely begin to describe others.
We have to make a distinction between gender and gender role though. The first is a biological construct, the second (and by far the most dominant) a social one.
If I was alone on a desert island, having a somewhat masculinised body would still be just as awful. Most cissexual RadFem writers and philosophers don’t understand that. Perhaps if they were stricken with cancer, and had a bilateral mastectomy and radical hysterectomy requiring genital reconstruction, they might.
As regards gender role though… I’m not exactly a girly girl. Makeup is something I only use on special occasions, as are heels and all the other trappings expected of a woman of my age and social position. I’m an engineer, not exactly a stereotypical “female” occupation. I’m a child of the 50’s and 60’s, when “good girls” were supposed to be nurses, not doctors, beauticians, certainly not Rocket Scientists.
I never accepted that. Even at age 10. But societal pressure made doing an un-natural “boy act” far easier, and I certainly took advantage of male privilege there.
So while I’m cis-gendered in one respect, in the way I interact with other women, and especially other female engineers and academics, when it comes to gender role, I’m just like they are in violating Patriarchally-decreed norms.
As regards genital reconstruction surgery being “cosmetic”, “optional” and “un-necessary”, I’ll quote from the Standards of Care:
“Sex Reassignment is Effective and Medically Indicated in Severe GID. In persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment surgery, along with hormone therapy and real life experience, is a treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not “experimental,” “investigational,” “elective,” “cosmetic,” or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID.”
It can be argued (and with much justification) that this is the product of a notoriously Patriarchal medical establishment. Except the Patriarchy is against it, it’s only those men and women who have specialised in the area who have written this.
July 11, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Hi redmegaera, just throwing a bit of support your way because honestly I don’t have a lot to say on this topic that I haven’t already said. I don’t think that transgenderism/transsexuality is a feminist issue. I don’t think that “female” is a “gender identity.” I don’t consider that I have a “gender identity.” Oppression is inherently a class-based, that is, a collective phenomenon; “identity” an inherently individualistic phenomenon. Therefore it’s oranges and apples, you ask me. Males oppress females and intersexed people. Arguments about “cissexuality” and “cisgender” are nothing more than attempts to distract feminists’ attention from the sexist oppression of females by males.
I have nothing to say about someone thinking their penis is “awful.” I don’t like penises, personally, but then I don’t have much trouble avoiding them. If someone is distressed by theirs, well, I’m sure that’s painful, but I don’t see why anyone would think it deserves attention from feminists.
July 21, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Amy’s Brain Today
You have a way of sifting through massive amounts of verbiage and extracting the hot (maybe cold?) core that matters. It’s that core–the oppression of women under the regime of patriarchy–that needs to be kept front and center. It’s easy to lose sight of that in all the proliferating sidelights, sideshows and shadow-boxing.
“Arguments about “cissexuality” and “cisgender” are nothing more than attempts to distract feminists’ attention from the sexist oppression of females by males.”
That’s patriarchy’s calling card: division. And distraction. That’s why they’re so successful. They’ve been doing this for 10,000 years.
July 11, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Thanks Amy, I appreciate your support. I’m a huge admirer of your blog.
Oppression is inherently a class-based, that is, a collective phenomenon; “identity” an inherently individualistic phenomenon. Therefore it’s oranges and apples, you ask me.
What a brilliant distillation! Thank you.
Zoe: I appreciate your contribution but I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
You wrote We have to make a distinction between gender and gender role though. The first is a biological construct, the second (and by far the most dominant) a social one. I don’t think that gender and gender roles are anywhere near as discrete as you seem to be suggesting. I do like the phrase “biological construct ” though, because it hints at the social construction of health and disease- however partial that might be.
Just curious: do you think someone with no or limited powers of abstraction could “feel” transsexual?
I’m not hugely interested in discussing transsexuality on my blog. In my experience, most transsexuals have too much personal investment in sex-reassignment surgery and biologism to adequately address the radical feminist position(s). The main reason I re-posted this was because I didn’t want Sungold to have the final say about my opinions on the subject!
July 11, 2009 at 11:27 pm
“I’m not hugely interested in discussing transsexuality on my blog. In my experience, most transsexuals have too much personal investment in sex-reassignment surgery and biologism to adequately address the radical feminist position(s).”
It would be difficult to argue against that. Not so much the biologism, but certainly the personal investment in getting treatment for their condition is unusually overpowering.
For the biologism, please have a read of
“Clinical implications of the organizational and activational effects of hormones. Diamond M. Horm Behav. 2009 May;55(5):621-32
Unfortunately, some Radical Feminist positions are even more fanatical when it comes to the question of Trans women. See for example the situation with Lu’s Pharmacy in Vancouver.
July 12, 2009 at 4:32 am
IMHO gender has nothing to do with biology. That term was invented to talk about the social, that is behavioral, effects/constraints/phenomena of sexist oppression of women, the fact that it is PATRIARCHY that links biology=social role=behavior, female=woman=feminine, male=man=masculine, and never the two shall meet.
Given how people are using “gender” these days, to mean anything they want it to mean, science, zoology and reality be damned, it pretty much has no meaning left, so I prefer the terms “sex” (male, female, intersexed) and “sex roles” (women, men, feminine, masculine). It is then much easier to be clear what we are talking about.
I do understand liking to have the last word.
July 13, 2009 at 3:25 am
IMHO gender has nothing to do with biology. That term was invented to talk about the social, that is behavioral, effects/constraints/phenomena of sexist oppression of women, the fact that it is PATRIARCHY that links biology=social role=behavior, female=woman=feminine, male=man=masculine, and never the two shall meet.
Yay Amy! You sum it all up.
As for Zoe, we unfortunately have to say “Zoe, Zoe, Zoe *tisk tisk*” every time she appears.
Hiya Zoe!!!
Transgender = someone who moves between one gender (role) and another.
Transsexual = someone who moves between one (biological) sex and another (or at least a surgical approximation thereof). Intersex exemption due to ambiguity (hey, sometimes nature just can’t make up its mind ok?!)
Transgender is anyone who defies the social constructs of gender roles, and opts for the opposite. Most radfems would actually fit the definition of ‘transgender’, but would smote you down in the blink of an eye if you suggested they were ‘transgender’. The whole point of radical feminism would be in eliminating gender roles, not to uphold them.
Transsexual is primarily about not being able to express one’s self within accepted gender roles, or a pyschological dissatisfaction with the body one has. For whichever reason, it is not a good thing to promote as a widespread practise (except for specialist surgeons, who laugh all the way to the bank). Quite a number of people may be dissatisfied with the body they have, however, it is not a radical stance to chop off bits and claim it to be either a political or natural solution. If it were a natural solution, Nature would have invented it already (it takes a surgeon to fulfill this remember).
None of that means that radical feminists are transphobic (oh the horrors! of being called transphobic), because each to their own in this very fucked up world we live in. We are against the concept – that anyone needs to have unnecessary surgery and chop off healthy body parts – rather than against the individual who feels they must do what they feel they must do, in order to survive or be happy.
Anyway, radfems have said all this about a million times before, so sorry for sending many of you off to sleep already!
July 15, 2009 at 10:52 pm
‘Transgender is anyone who defies the social constructs of gender roles, and opts for the opposite.’
No. Transgender is anyone who defies the social constructs of THEIR GIVEN gender role, and opts for the opposite.
If transgender were defying ‘the social constructs of gender roles’, they would be radical feminists, at least on the topic of gender. Radical feminists say ‘Gender, as a concept, is rubbish,’ whilst transgender say ‘THIS gender is rubbish, I like THAT one.’ Which is not defying the social concepts of gender roles at all.
‘Most radfems would actually fit the definition of ‘transgender’,’
No. An unshaven woman is not being masculine just because she is unshaven. A hoodie-and-trainer clad woman is not being masculine just because she is not in a ball gown or what have you. An unfeminine woman is not masculine just because she is not feminine. She is just an unfeminine woman.
That is not to say there are not women who do try to be masculine. Just that refusing femininity alone does not make one automatically masculine.
July 21, 2009 at 2:57 pm
So, so true Valerie. All of this can be confusing because this discussion takes place within the confines and context of patriarchy which, like it or not, is all-pervasive and it infects our thinking and thought processes. All of us grow up and are nurtured within its toxic environment. Naturally our discussions start to sound like…THEM.
The awful truth lurking beneath these arguments is that patriarchy’s main aim, one that if achieves horribly well, is to rob, strip and rape females of their femininity. This happens, to the majority of girls, before they reach pre-school (finishing school).
After that, it’s catch-up time, trying to sort out what happened? And who am I, really? That can take a lifetime.
Patriarchy’s the only game in town, and it’s infectious tentacles reach everywhere.
July 16, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Radical feminists say ‘Gender, as a concept, is rubbish,’ whilst transgender say ‘THIS gender is rubbish, I like THAT one.’ Which is not defying the social concepts of gender roles at all.
Absolutely Valerie.
(in quoting moi)
‘Most radfems would actually fit the definition of ‘transgender’,’
No. An unshaven woman is not being masculine just because she is unshaven….
I did not mean it like that (because I don’t believe a non-feminine woman is masculine). I meant it in the sense of what you said above, that is ‘Gender, as a concept, is rubbish’, and actively refusing to adopt the ‘feminine’ role assigned to females. It is opting out of the gender binary/system entirely, and just being ones self.
Klar?
September 5, 2009 at 2:01 am
[...] suffer? Yes, but I agree whole heartedly with Redmegaera’s sentiments regarding this, which you can read here, and I don’t feel a need to discuss that here at my blog. I do not consider myself [...]
September 8, 2009 at 9:22 am
‘Gender presentation” is simply the ideology to maintain patriarchy. It’s why women and girls went to court in the 60s to help get rid of dress codes forcing girls to wear dresses in freezing cold weather, for example. Women fought to change dress codes and work places, they didn’t go and get operated on. They fought for societal change, and feminists waged an open war against male supremacy. That’s the huge difference. Transgender is simply a ratification of existing social norms, not a challenge of those norms. Otherwise MTFs would still go into “male” restrooms, now that is a real gender norm challenge. The invasion of women’s space by formerly men is just that, patriarchal invasion. Nothing more.
Transgender is simply about the status quo, it is not in any way challenging patriarchy, it is ratifying it. Radical lesbians have always transgressed “gender police codes.” We have never agreed with the idea of what women are, we know who we are.
And as for FTMs, well, once they were women, they were treated as such, and do have a good idea of what patriarchy is and how evil it is. MTFs have never had this in early childhood, and still act entitled to power ever after transition. It’s pretty easy to see how this plays out politically in the world.
As for butch/femme, well, I can’t think of one butch lesbian I’ve ever met who is anything like a man. First of all, there is the warm smile, which men are incapable of, and second there is the awareness of feminism. Since men aren’t feminists, are the entitled class, and triumph in their ideology of male supremacy, I think FTMs might have some good insights about this. All we ever hear about are the MTFs invading feminist and lesbian spaces, but I don’t see FTMs doing this. There is no reverse of Michigan, for example.
October 10, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Hey redmegaera,
I’m a big fan of your blog and your writing.
I have just created a blog where I intend to critique trans activism from a radfem perspective. Do you mind if I link to and quote from this post of yours? (and also your “queer is a privilege” post?)
October 10, 2009 at 9:45 pm
No worries, Miska. Thanks for your support. I look forward to reading more of your writing.
October 13, 2009 at 12:03 am
[...] redmegaera’s take: Another problem with the cis/trans binary is that it invisibilizes the heirarchical nature of [...]