QuoteThis has been done by denying the medical model of transsexuality via "education" that transgendered identified individuals, something entirely different than those born with transsexual or intersexual conditions, do not "require" surgery or body modifications while at the same time attempting to coattail the understanding that had been achieved BECAUSE of the nature of transsexuality. Not suffering from the dysphoric imperative, these activists have been busy selling the idea that surgery is optional rather than the well established and highly successful treatment the medical profession recognizes for those born with classic transsexuality.
I am in agreement with you that those 'educating' people about trans issues (hope you don't mind me using that as a broad term) need to be careful to not to dismiss those who experience severe dysphoria and have a medical need for hormonal and surgical treatments as simply undergoing 'body modifications' on a whim. This is potentially very harmful for those who require medical help from medical insurance or socialised healthcare systems.
However it's a rather broad statement that "transgendered identified individuals [are] something entirely different than those born with transsexual or intersexual conditions". There are many non-binary identified people and people who are binary identified but non-gender role conforming who experience debilitating dysphoria and have a real medical need for hormonal and surgical treatments.
QuoteHad the modern trans-civil rights movement actually been about obtaining civil rights, they never would have taken this position, but you see, it isn't about that, it's about pushing a socialital wide agenda of total deconstruction of all gender in order bolster their own positions outside a gender binary accepted by almost everyone in the world.
I think non-gender-role conforming people whether cisgender identified, binary transsexuals or otherwise transgender have a right to not be discriminated against for their gender expression or gender identity (percieved or actual). This is a very different civil rights battle than the right for binary transsexual people to be legally considered full members of the gender they identify as.
QuoteFailing that their fall back position is dragging everyone gender variant in any fashion into a third category in addition to the binary.
I think you're talking about the tendency to lump all trans people into a 'third gender' category. This is something I don't agree with, people have the right to be binary identified whether cissexual or transsexual.
QuoteTheir feminist allies in this are among the "third wave" of feminism which consists mainly of young women in college experimenting with denial of gender. This is great fun in the safe confinement of an insular world but most of them quickly find out it doesn't work once they are out in the wider world.
I don't see how whether something 'working' in the wider world really has any relevance on its legitimacy. It could be said that being transsexual doesn't 'work' in the wider world if you don't have the privilege of passing and at least some level of stealth (more so historically). Things are not invalid simply because the wider world might not be ready to accept them yet.
QuoteThe latest of these "transwomen" wearing feminist clothing is the current darling of the TG crowd, Julia Serano. Julia makes many excellent points but fails on one major area, she approaches feminism as an outsider, a "transsexual" rather than a woman without reservation. In my own experience, this makes all the difference in the world.
When trans identified people approach women's space as trans, they are confirming the accusations of the radical separatists, they are essentially trying to colonize or invade women's space. This would seem to be a no brainer to me, but is a rather simple concept that immediately raises the back hairs of the transgendered crowd.
At its core, the logic behind this is cissexist. Being trans identified and being a woman are not mutually exclusive. One term refers to a person's medical history (in the case of binary identified transsexuals), the other refers to a person's gender. I think Julia believes that she is somewhat an outsider due to having lived a portion of her life in 'male role'. All women of transsexual history have lived some of their life in 'male role', this is undeniable fact. Does simply refusing to allude to that fact make you more of a woman than those who choose to admit it? I don't see how that can possibly be the case! When trans identified WOMEN approach women's space as trans identified WOMEN (and therefore AS WOMEN), it's cissexist to say that their presence is any less legitimate than ciswomen or trans women who choose to not refer to their history.
QuoteIn 2012 the world itself might not end, but it certainly will for the transgenders.......they will find themselves medically defined as fetishists across the board and thus can kiss goodbye to any further progress in the civil rights arena.
If this happens I think it'll be more down to the insistance by some binary identified 'classic transsexuals' that if you're not a 'classic transsexual' you're a fetishist. (or that if you're non-binary you have no medical needs).
There are plenty of transgender people who're simply gender role non-conforming. There is nothing fetishtic about being a feminine man who wants to express that with his clothing.
There are plenty of transgender (but not binary transsexual) people who identify as neither male nor female. This also not a fetish.
There are plenty of non-binary identified people who have a real need for medical treatment, dismissing their needs would be an act just as deadly as failing to recognise the needs of those with 'classic transsexuality'.
I could do more point by point analysis but I don't think it'd really be beneficial.
Education about 'trans issues' needs to make it clear that dysphoria about ones body (and dysphoria due to ones hormonal balance) and expression of masculinity/femininity(/everything in between) are two separate issues. This way both battles for recognition can be fought without infighting. The last thing either side needs to do is be seen as attacking the other. That makes all of us look invalid.
I recognise there is a lot of past bad history here but the worst thing any of us could do is continue to be divisive. Can we not put the "sins" of the past to rest? We need to work together when we have a common need and avoid invalidating the needs of others the rest of the time.