Guest Post by Dragon Dyke.
The latest slogan of the trans activists is ‘my feminism will be intersectional or it will be bull shit’. The current trans obsession with intersectionality is a major cause for concern, and a trans co-option of intersectional theory could have disastrous consequences for the political struggles of all subordinate groups.
Trans activists are co-opting political movements and the ultimate trans agenda is to remove the rights of all subordinate groups to self-determination and movements for liberation. I do not believe that most individuals who identify as trans or their allies are consciously planning the depoliticisation of class based oppressions. Trans is a structural and colonising tactic – a tool of the patriarchy, but if you buy into trans theory, that is what you are buying into.
The trans cooption of feminism and the attacks of the right of the female class to collective self-determination is the beginning of what I believe will end up being a long running movement to co-opt all struggles of subordinate groups. Trans is a growing movement and it is no longer only focused on trans sex and trans gender. New trans movements focus on trans abled and trans age, and any day now I am expecting to see the emergence of white men who claim to be trans race. As with trans genderism, these new trans movements are largely based on the sexual fetishisation of the subordinate group. So what is the scope of the trans project and what is the impact this growing movement will have on all subordinate classes?
The rise of post modernism in the 1990’s contributed thoroughly to the backlash against feminism by perpetuating ideas that structural oppression, and hence oppression of women, does not really exist. According to the pomo’s (postmodernists), power only revolves around individual interactions. Transsexualism, which had initially been based on a conservative medical model, emerged later as a tool of the post modern feminist backlash.
Transexualism was the original trans theory, but with the rise of post modernism and queer theory (a sub-theory of post modernism), the concept of ‘gender’ was developed to invisibilise women, and with the spreading of the concept of gender (or jendah, as some rad fems like to put it), the theory of ‘trans gender’ emerged. Queer theorists and the conservative medical transsexual empire initially had some major political conflict but the two seem to have blended into a mind boggling and utterly confused and contradictory political movement.
The second wave women’s liberationists have been horrified by the impact of this trans movement on a number of levels. The women’s movement was a movement organised by women against male supremacy. Like other subordinate groups, women in the second wave were able to develop a very clear understanding of who the dominant group were – men. Women’s space was vital to the movement. But women have been bullied and coerced into accepting members of the dominant group (adult males) into their organising spaces. The original intentions of feminist and the women’s liberation movement have been fought viciously by post modernists, who advocate for feminism to be a void of nothingness, having no material reality, open to everyone and anyone, with anyone being able to self identify as anything. So now they think they have accomplished the destruction of the women’s liberation movement (of course we are not going away that easily), what’s next?
It is a very smart move for the post modern trans theorists to jump on the intersectionality band wagon – why? – because they can kill 5 birds the with one stone by coopting several political struggles all in one hit. The development of a trans intersectional movement is already peaking right now. We now have the emergence of trans ablism, a movement of males (who also happen to almost all be transsexual or transgender identifying), who are claiming that they are disabled people in abled people’s bodies, as described in the story of National Geographic’s “Taboo” : Fake paraplegic.
How long will it be before disability rights advocates, who oppose the trans-ablest agenda, start getting called ‘transphobes’ and bigots and bullied into accepting the delusions of these men and allowing them into activist groups for people with disabilities? From reading the blogs of many of these men, it is clear that they have little intention of actually becoming disabled. Some are demanding various kinds of surgery, but most are happy with an aid, for example a leg brace or a hearing aid. The obsession these men have with such aids is a cause for concern and likely revolves around a sexual fetish. This trend mirrors trans gender ( born males) who contrary to popular belief often have no intention of actually having any surgery and are content with the fetishisation of things they associate with women, such as wigs, dresses and make up (see http://twanzphobic.wordpress.com/tackle-status/). Despite this, women who refuse to accept these men as women are punished and shamed. Lesbians are harassed into accepting them as lesbians and called transphobes for ruling them out as potential sexual partners.
It may seem innocent on the surface and I do not wish to judge anyone’s personal internal identities, but this could become problematic if the trans activists start advocating for the rights of men like Riley to be able to attend Kindy or join a play group, because this would be an inappropriate and unreasonable invasion of such a space for children. It would be unreasonable for trans activist to call concerned children or parents transphobic for not being comfortable with ‘adult babies’ in children’s safe spaces. Most people would understand this, but yet not all can apply the same standards to women’s spaces.
So where does this end? Well what we do know is that when male to trans people co-opted the women’s movement, that they managed to centre their trans agenda and delude and con naïve sympathisers (which included myself for a long time) into thinking that they are the most marginalised women and that no female born person could be oppressed as much as a ‘trans woman’. In fact the subordination of the female born is presented as a privilege with the emergence of trans language, such as cis-gender. The struggle for female liberation is lost in all the bullshit.
When are people who were born with or acquired a disability without choosing to going to start being ‘cis-disabled’, when are actual infants going to start being called ‘cis-babies’? when the white ‘trans race’ men emerge, will people of colour be called ‘cis-race’? will rich, bourgeois men be able to join the Industrial Workers of the World, if they have an internal identity as a struggling worker?
What I am interested to find out is how intesectional feminists and activists will react to the intersectional trans agendas (trans abled, trans babies, trans race). Will they support them, as they seem to have the trans gender movement, or will they call them out as bullshit?