An Open Letter to the National Center for Transgende​r Equality on the Cotton Ceiling Debacle

OK, so, I'm torn about this one. The letter you link ends up with some really offensive stuff, and the ad hominem attack is totally unjustified, but I was actually pretty annoyed a little while back by a post I read (probably on a link from you?) about the "cotton ceiling".

Obviously I think that lesbians and feminists in general should be supportive of trans women (and trans men and gender variant people etc etc etc - the whole spectrum). And I am sure that there is lots of transmisogyny around even among the bits of the feminist movement that aren't being overtly exclusionary. But sex is an overwhelmingly physical thing, and we do generally (as a society) recognise that people are attracted to different physical characteristics. I think this is particularly true in the discourse around sexuality - we talk about people "liking dick", or "liking pussy", and I've definitely seen people talking about sex in those terms, about being turned on by particular organs or features which are seen as characteristic of a gender. I don't think that's inherently illegitimate.

Having said that, it's obviously not fair to trans people (or anyone!) to dismiss them as sexual partners purely because of biology which they did not choose and which they often wish to reject. I would agree that it's important for people to be open to possible partners and not to immediately dismiss them on the basis of external factors. Trans women are women, and deserve to be considered as sexual partners as much as anyone else who wishes.

But I find the presentation that lesbian women "should" be willing to have penetrative sex with lesbian trans women, even if they have strong personal reasons for not wanting contact with penises (history of abuse, fear of potential pregnancy, etc etc etc), that in order to be "good" women that they must be subject to the demands of the penis, particularly when directed at women who are so frequently told that "all they need is a good fucking", or that they're jealous of cis men for their genitals, etc etc... Yeah, I'm really not comfortable with that.

TL;DR OK SORRY

I dunno, I have some issues with this debate. But that link you posted makes me feel kind of bad about that, because the person who wrote it is clearly being an enormous jerk towards trans women. The comments on the photograph are just utterly beyond the pale.

The lemonade stand thing - exactly. I see so many of these "heartwarming" stories, people raising money, athletes donating to sickly children, blah blah blah and every time they make me want to jump up and down shouting at people about healthcare and how fucked up the system is.

Also, good for Mary Beard. AA Gill is clearly a dick.

I did think about trans people often having extra-complicated relationships with their genitals, because of course that does make a difference. But the way I've seen the debate being framed (possibly mostly by the cis radfem side) has definitely involved penises.

The tradition of hostility is something I was conflicted about when thinking about this issue - because, yes, the Michigan Womyn's Festival did come to mind, and it makes me that much warier about potentially finding myself agreeing with that side of the argument when I want to reject their transphobia. Policing boundaries is jerky behaviour regardless, and to find a group which is often being policed by other people rejecting its own membership is always especially upsetting. I think it's something that happens to trans people far more than most other minorities, too, because there often is that issue of "crossing over" from assumed membership of one group to claiming a different identity... the idea of "passing" is much more significant, I think.

I must confess that my encounters with Gill have mostly been when he's said something offensive; I don't have much of a positive connotation for him. But it's good to know that there is more to him! :)