Ms. Jeffreys' a long time denouncer of trans* women has
struck again with her newest book, "Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of
the Politics of Transgenderism".
My first feelings on this matter are: How the hell does she
feel entitled to critically analyze the politics of “transgenderism”, why does
she keep railing against transsexual women, why does she feel she has any
currency in the topic? {Transgenderism?!! WTF is that?}
She has forced her way into the discussion of trans* lives
and bodies for a long time. Trans* women have been dealing with her telling the
world we are vile for a long time. It is getting to the point with her that she
is making her money on the backs of transgender lives and this is unjust. She
rails against us and says vile things, then writes a book and makes money from
our suffering?! NO!! If she was any sort of decent human she would donate every
cent of the proceeds from that book to charity. Preferably a trans* one, but we
all know that isn’t going to happen.
When she isn’t writing about “transgenderism” and instead is focusing in on
real women’s/womyn’s issues she is smart and articulate. She proposes things to
contemplate on that take some tough work. You will check your privilege at the
door and think deep when you read her works. She is a true feminist and she is
respected in many circles.
However that respect is then transferred to a topic she is not qualified to
speak on and many feminists take her every word as gospel. This really harms TS
women when such a prominent figure in the feminist world takes such a hard and
vile stance on them. Transgender people of all stripes are a marginalized community
and we really do not need prominent public figures making our lives more difficult.
To get a little idea of the Ms. Jeffreys’ opinion on the matter
let us turn to a wiki section on her views on trans* people:
{Jeffreys has received attention for her views on
transgenderism, transsexualism and gender reassignment. In an interview, Bindel
explains that Jeffreys believes transsexual surgery "is an extension of
the beauty industry offering cosmetic solutions to deeper rooted problems"
and that in a society without gender this would be unnecessary.[5] Jeffreys has
presented these views in various forums. In a 1997 article in the Journal of
Lesbian Studies, for example, Jeffreys contended that "transsexualism
should be seen as a violation of human rights." Jeffreys also argued that
"the vast majority of transsexuals still subscribe to the traditional
stereotype of women" and that by transitioning medically and socially,
trans women are "constructing a conservative fantasy of what women should
be. They are inventing an essence of womanhood which is deeply insulting and
restrictive."[
Jeffreys' opinions on these topics have been challenged by
transgender activists. Roz Kaveney, a trans woman and critic of Jeffreys, wrote
in The Guardian that Sheila Jeffreys and radical feminists who share her views
are "acting like a cult." Kaveney compared Jeffreys' desire to ban
transsexual surgery to the Catholic Church's desire to ban abortion, arguing
that both proposals bear negative "implications for all women."
Finally, Kaveney criticized Jeffreys' and her supporters for alleged
"anti-intellectualism, emphasis on innate knowledge, fetishisation of tiny
ideological differences, heresy hunting, conspiracy theories, rhetorical use of
images of disgust, talk of stabs in the back and romantic apocalypticism."}
Ms. Jeffreys has stood against the entire idea that gender
in some ways may be innate. She clings to this notion like a religious fanatic
clings to their outdated beliefs.
We need only look to the case of David Reimer to see that there
is indeed something innate to gender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
Admitting that there may be something to
the entire idea of gender being innate does not take away from humanity.
I think that the fear that some of the clingers on of outdated ideals is that,
in admitting that there are innate gendered differences, this will in some way
invalidate a century of hard work by feminists. That is not a realistic fear.
The ideal that all people are entitled to equal treatment will not go away. The
fact that patriarchy oppresses women will not become untrue if gender may be
innate. The need for legislation to
protect women and give them a fair shake will not go away with such a truth.
All it is saying is that there is something special and unique to being male or
female that we have not yet pinned down.
Ms. Jefferys’,
I know that you must know that there is something about women that men do not
have. There is a special something that other women recognize in other women.
When we see each other there is the knowing smile and beaming of eyes, recognition
of one woman to another that says, ‘I recognize my sister’.
There is nothing wrong with saying that the sexes
are different in some ways. No difference justifies patriarchy or oppression.
Back to her book:
From the book description on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Hurts-Feminist-Analysis-Transgenderism/dp/0415539404
{It is only recently that transgenderism has
been accepted as a disorder for which treatment is available. In the 1990s, a
political movement of transgender activism coalesced to campaign for
transgender rights. Considerable social, political and legal changes are
occurring in response and there is increasing acceptance by governments and
many other organisations and actors of the legitimacy of these rights.
This provocative and controversial book explores the consequences of these
changes and offers a feminist perspective on the ideology and practice of
transgenderism, which the author sees as harmful. It explores the effects of
transgenderism on the lesbian and gay community, the partners of people who
transgender, children who are identified as transgender and the people who
transgender themselves, and argues that these
are negative. In doing so the book contends that the phenomenon is based upon
sex stereotyping, referred to as 'gender' – a conservative ideology that forms
the foundation for women's subordination. Gender Hurts argues for the
abolition of ‘gender’, which would remove the rationale for transgenderism.
This book will be of
interest to scholars and students of political science, feminism and feminist
theory and gender studies.}
Ms. Jeffreys seeks to some way abolish gender and “transgenderism”
which she calls a human rights violation.
Well that is very presumptuous of her. I am a transgender person and my human
rights were not violated. I put the hormones in my body, not someone else. I
begged the doctors to help me with my medical needs.
They agreed because they KNOW that transsexuals who do not transition kill
themselves in high numbers. It has been reported that upwards of 41% of
transgender people have attempted suicide. That is just the percentage of us
who are still alive to report. The suicide rates of trans* people is sky high.
No amount of criticism of policy will change the fact that trans* people who do
not get treatment have a high mortality rate.
It has been shown that transition is the only cure for gender dysphoria. Until
Ms. Jeffreys finds a cure for ‘transgender ideation’ that equals or exceeds the
survival/success rate of current best practices, she should not be calling for
the abolition of the treatment. If we did things her way then trans* people
would never have the option to transition and we would wallow in misery.
Also, transgender people who live true to self report overwhelmingly that they
are more content with life post transition. They go from depressed and unable
to be productive in society, to productive members of society. That alone
should be reason enough to just let us live in peace without feminist leaders
labeling us as a sickness symptom of society.
So I have yet to read this book and the price tag associated with it is a
little steep for my pocketbook. I will eventually get my hands on a second hand
copy. I suspect that there will be nothing of new substance offered from her
previous writings.
Have a great day,
Cynthia Lee
