Judith Butler says trans rights

Alona Ferber’s interview with Judith Butler in the New Statesman is a thing of beauty. You can feel the frustration of Ferber here, trying to get Judith Butler to agree with her transphobia and failing miserably:

AF: One example of mainstream public discourse on this issue in the UK is the argument about allowing people to self-identify in terms of their gender. In an open letter she published in June, JK Rowling articulated the concern that this would “throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman”, potentially putting women at risk of violence.

JB: If we look closely at the example that you characterise as “mainstream” we can see that a domain of fantasy is at work, one which reflects more about the feminist who has such a fear than any actually existing situation in trans life. The feminist who holds such a view presumes that the penis does define the person, and that anyone with a penis would identify as a woman for the purposes of entering such changing rooms and posing a threat to the women inside. It assumes that the penis is the threat, or that any person who has a penis who identifies as a woman is engaging in a base, deceitful, and harmful form of disguise. This is a rich fantasy, and one that comes from powerful fears, but it does not describe a social reality. Trans women are often discriminated against in men’s bathrooms, and their modes of self-identification are ways of describing a lived reality, one that cannot be captured or regulated by the fantasies brought to bear upon them. The fact that such fantasies pass as public argument is itself cause for worry.

AF: I want to challenge you on the term “terf”, or trans-exclusionary radical feminist, which some people see as a slur.

JB: I am not aware that terf is used as a slur. I wonder what name self-declared feminists who wish to exclude trans women from women’s spaces would be called? If they do favour exclusion, why not call them exclusionary? If they understand themselves as belonging to that strain of radical feminism that opposes gender reassignment, why not call them radical feminists? My only regret is that there was a movement of radical sexual freedom that once travelled under the name of radical feminism, but it has sadly morphed into a campaign to pathologise trans and gender non-conforming peoples. My sense is that we have to renew the feminist commitment to gender equality and gender freedom in order to affirm the complexity of gendered lives as they are currently being lived.

It shows the lack of intellectual depth in the socalled “gender critical” movement and how much of it is just a mask for transphobia as well as old fashioned homophobia. The resulting outbursts of terfy anger on Twitter after this was published only confirmed this. What was supposedly an intellectual hero of these people was quickly subjected to the Two Minute Hate. It’s rare to see terfs self own so spectacularly.

Transphobia has consequences

Sales of J. K. Rowling’s books in the US fell twenty percent short of the industry average:

Last month, sales in print books in fiction overall rose 31.4% in the U.S. from May, according to figures from NPD BookScan, with fiction titles in adult, young adult and juvenile sectors all seeing similar double-digit growth. The author of the “Harry Potter” series, by contrast, saw her print book sales in the U.S. rise just 10.9% in June. “Harry Potter” sales — including licensed titles not authored by Rowling — rose even less, just 7.7% for the month. While the BookScan figures do not account for other points of sale — like eBooks, sales to libraries and direct publisher sales — they do point to a remarkably sudden and sharp drop in print sales for Rowling’s books.

It seems that despite her habit of suing people for pointing out her transphobia, enough people have cottoned on to hurt her sales. Once again proving that the vast majority of people do not have any truck with transphobes.

Ding dong the witch is dead

The best thing I saw when I checked Twitter this morning:

Graham -glinner- Linehan suspended from Twitter

We’ve talked about Graham Linehan before. An Irish “comedy” writer who got famous for coasting off the talents of other people on Father Ted, he took criticism to a shitty transphobic joke on The IT Crowd so badly he became a transphobe 24/7. I used to follow him when I first got on Twitter, like I followed a lot of other UK comedy people, but over time his feed became more and more hateful. Just full on hatred for trans people, attempting to sic his followers on anybody who disagreed with him and whinging on how his celebrity friends were deserting him for telling the truth. He lost his friends, his family, his wife and arguably his sanity, but it wasn’t enough to stop his obsession with other people’s genitals. Ultimately he started accusing people of being ‘groomers’ for just talking about trans people. Which was the final straw for Twitter.

A hilarious epilogue followed, as Glinner went crying to Mumsnet, his erstwhile allies in the battle against trans people, only to have the posters there respond like this:

Glinner gets no sympathy on mumsnet

Sorry, who are you and why should I care that you’ve been banned from Twitter? You seem to be a man by the looks of it so why are you posting in the feminism forum? This is a female space.

Never was somebody hoisted on his own petard so beautifully. Thanks, another man. Mumsnet doesn’t need you anymore. On a more serious note, Glinner gone means a huge source of harassment against trans people and their defenders is now gone. There isn’t really anybody with the same sort of reach and audience as him. It once again shows how important no platforming is as a strategy to fight against bigots and nazis.

“Get over it and go pee”

Alison Bechdel already knew the score in 1995:

Dykes to Watch Out For comic from 1995 on transphobia

The titular Dykes to Watch Out Fo are walking out of a bad movie, when Jillian has to pee. Mo, who has to do the same, doesn’t want to enter the loo because Jillian, though cool, is a trans woman. Lois tells her off, saying she’s not going to wait around all night just because Mo has a transphobia attack. So Mo enters the toilets, only to be challenged by a woman on whether she is in the right bathroom. (Mo looks rather butch after all.) Jillian defends her, telling the stranger to take a closer look. After this, Mo thanks Jillian and says she would do the same for her. This is however no longer necessary now her “nobody knows I’m a transsexual” t-shirt has worn out.

So there you have it, the absurdity of the bathroom panic laid bare in a twentyfive year old comic. Trans women are no danger, the idea that you can tell who is and is not a woman at a glance is deeply homophobic and barring people from pissing in the toilets they feel most comfortable in is ludicrous.

Bruce Springsteen: queer icon

I can see it.

Cover of Born in the USA with the Springsteen butt

More seriously, Naomi Gordon-Loebl in the Nation:

Which raises a difficult question: What exactly is so queer about Springsteen? Is it his extreme butchness, so practiced and so precise that he might as well have learned it from the oldest lesbian at a gay bar? Is it because his hard-earned, roughly hewn version of love is recognizable to those of us for whom desire has often meant sacrifice? Or is it something simpler? Do many queers love Springsteen because nearly every song he has produced in his 50-year career reflects a crushing, unabiding sense of alienation and longing—and what could be more queer than that?

The story of Bruce Springsteen is well known. Two albums that made him and the E-Street Band Jersey stars, a breakthrough album after the band got tweaked a bit with Born to Run, crowned the future of rock and roll, then fucked over by his first manager and forbidden from recording for a few years. The band spent the three years between Born to Run and Darkness on the Edge of Town touring, honing their craft. Once they re-emerged, older and more cynical, most of Bruce’s original optimism had disappeared.



It’s that backstory that makes his music so much more grounded than many of his rock contemporaries. His songs don’t offer fantasies, though they can offer hope. His most famous hit sounds so much like a patriotic anthem Ronald Reagan wanted it as a campaign song, but is actually a seering indictment of the realities of his “Morning in America”. Even at his most insufferable, on Human Touch/Lucky Town he still can’t quite forget his working class roots. He walks the walk too: doing fund raisers for the Democrats, tours for Amnesty International and the like. He has spoken out against police violence and for Black Lives Matter and of course wrote the above song about the murder of Amadou Diallo. He isn’t perfect, but his heart is in the right place.

I became a fan when I was ten, eleven. One of the first albums of his I owned, was the live boxset he brought out in 1985, a compilation of ten years of touring. That was at the height of his popularity, deep in the dark heart of Reagan America and what’s on it? Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land”, Edwin Starr’s “War”, a warning that “because in 1985, blind faith in your leaders, or in anyone can get you killed”. He’s deeply subversive on a level I didn’t understand then, but unconsciously seeped into me.

Naomi Gordon-Loebl argues that the pain he puts in his songs is what makes him resonate with queer people like her. Not being queer myself I can’t judge, but to me he is the lightning example of how to be butch, how to be masculine without being macho. It’s a masculinity that is available to anybody who feels attracted to it, not reserved just for cis men. It’s part of what keeps me coming back to Bruce Springsteen again and again too.