Read on Twitter
(thread)
Hey I wanna talk about complaints of "violent transactivists".
Well, I don't WANT to. I'd rather not have to. I'd rather be drinking tea and reading epistemology. But here we fucking are...
(1/n)
Hey I wanna talk about complaints of "violent transactivists".
Well, I don't WANT to. I'd rather not have to. I'd rather be drinking tea and reading epistemology. But here we fucking are...
(1/n)
Members of a certain political constituency that, um, represent themselves as feminists (often specifically Radical Feminists) and want to Exclude Trans folks in various ways, represent "violent" and "threatening" character of some trans activism as in some way damning.
(2/n)
(2/n)
And they point to various tweets, t-shirts, images, and so on feature talk of various acts of in-person violence or of death, and sometimes photos trans activists holding weapons or items intended to look weapon-y.
(3/n)
(3/n)
Now, I'm not usually a huge fan of this style of activism, as I've already discussed...
https://twitter.com/dr_i_rohl/status/1035411274660806657
(4/n)
https://twitter.com/dr_i_rohl/status/1035411274660806657
(4/n)
...but right now I want to talk about something else, which is why it's absurd to present this as delegitimizing of trans activism and of a certain acronym popular among trans activists...
(6/n)
(6/n)
...and why it's likewise absurd to buy into the insinuations that this somehow suggests that trans women are somehow especially violent, or that there's something especially male about such "violence".
(7/n)
(7/n)
Here's the thing:
REPRESENTATIONS OF VIOLENCE, PORTRAYALS OF WEAPONS, AND SOMETIMES ACTUAL VIOLENCE, HAVE A LONG HISTORY IN WOMEN'S ACTIVISM AND QUEER ACTIVISM.
Especially when that activism is radical, anti-assimilationist, or countercultural.
(8/n)
REPRESENTATIONS OF VIOLENCE, PORTRAYALS OF WEAPONS, AND SOMETIMES ACTUAL VIOLENCE, HAVE A LONG HISTORY IN WOMEN'S ACTIVISM AND QUEER ACTIVISM.
Especially when that activism is radical, anti-assimilationist, or countercultural.
(8/n)
Even if we look at liberation movements where the major players and organizations are nonviolent, someone somewhere is always ready to throw a punch.
(9/n)
(9/n)
I want to do this by reviewing some example of how, rather than being specific to male violence, this stuff has a long history in feminist and lesbian activism.
(10/n)
(10/n)
(Now, this is not my area of professional expertise, and it's the nature of this kind of thing that any list of this length will contain at least one error, but I hope you'll recognize that there's enough redundancy here that that doesn't detract from the point.)
(11/n)
(11/n)
So, using references to violence to express legitimate feminist rage - is that a thing?
Yeah, it sure is.
For example, here's a popular, kinda awesome, feminist tweet from a few months back:
https://twitter.com/lemay/status/997635873620484096
(12/n)
Yeah, it sure is.
For example, here's a popular, kinda awesome, feminist tweet from a few months back:
https://twitter.com/lemay/status/997635873620484096
(12/n)
Here's a feminist artist whose work I like expressing a similarly murderous sentiment last year:
https://twitter.com/heyjenbartel/status/913412766895046656
(13/n)
https://twitter.com/heyjenbartel/status/913412766895046656
(13/n)
And here's an entire feminist movement/subculture with "riot" in its name, exemplified by a band with "kill" in ITS name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_grrrl
(15/n)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_grrrl
(15/n)
But maybe you're concerned about the weapon-y-ness?
Okay, here's influential transphobic radical feminist Mary Daly enthusiastically brandishing a labrys:
(16/n)
Okay, here's influential transphobic radical feminist Mary Daly enthusiastically brandishing a labrys:
(16/n)
And here's a classic Lesbian Avengers poster featuring a firearm:
(17/n)
(17/n)
And another one with a bomb:
(18/n)
(18/n)
Some context and artist comments for those two can be found here:
http://www.lesbianavengers.com/images/moyer_design.shtml
(19/n)
http://www.lesbianavengers.com/images/moyer_design.shtml
(19/n)
Or if your preferred vintage is a little older, here's the kind of sword-intensive imagery the Women's Social and Political Union was circulating about a century ago:
(20/n)
(20/n)
I'm not telling you whether you should like or dislike these images. But if you're going to tell me that these don't suggest REAL violence, you should ask yourself why you don't give the same benefit-of-the-doubt when you see a photo of a trans woman with a baseball bat.
(21/n)
(21/n)
Now, at this point you may have in mind one of the (rare) incidents in which somebody actually threw a punch. Is there a history of women, fighting for righteous causes, actually DOING that kind of violence?
(22/n)
(22/n)
Here's Mary Leigh, a suffragette who THREW A FUCKING HATCHET AT THE PRIME MINISTER:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Leigh
(23/n)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Leigh
(23/n)
She missed, injuring an MP standing nearby.
(24/n)
(24/n)
And here's Edith Margaret Garrud, who trained WSPU members in hand-to-hand combat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Margaret_Garrud
(25/n)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Margaret_Garrud
(25/n)
And here are Emily Davidson and Kitty Marion, known for their bombing and arson work for the cause of women's political equality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Marion
(26/n)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Marion
(26/n)
I think those two focused on property destruction, but still, BOMBING AND ARSON. Sounds pretty hardcore, doesn't it?
(27/n)
(27/n)
Some of these examples are individual anomalies. Some are representative of or integral to the movements being discussed. There are more where those came from.
(28/n)
(28/n)
I don't, for the moment, care whether you're inclined to answer these examples with praise or condemnation.
But I hope you'll grant that none of these cases render the political demands less valid, or render the women behind them less of women.
(29/n)
But I hope you'll grant that none of these cases render the political demands less valid, or render the women behind them less of women.
(29/n)
Get a life, cis scum.
THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE.
(30/n, n=30, Fin)
THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE.
(30/n, n=30, Fin)
Postscript:
A FUCKING HATCHET!
Reviewing feminist history for this had me feeling a little like Steven Universe at the very beginning of 'Rose's Scabbard':
'This place is even bigger and more weapon-y than I remember.'
A FUCKING HATCHET!
Reviewing feminist history for this had me feeling a little like Steven Universe at the very beginning of 'Rose's Scabbard':
'This place is even bigger and more weapon-y than I remember.'
Bonus content: Lesbian Avengers eating fire, 1990s. Photos by Carolina Kroon.
(Eating fire isn't setting people on fire or threatening people with fire, but are you really gonna try to tell me the "but violent transactivists!" crowd would care about that distinction for a photo of a trans woman wearing a Degenderettes shirt and holding a flame?)
And also: https://twitter.com/butaflye/status/985076150895632384
(Look up Theresa Garnett if you're wondering what this is about.)
(Look up Theresa Garnett if you're wondering what this is about.)
I'm seeing more transphobes reacting to this elsewhere on twitter, and I am truly in awe of their missing the point skills.
But where, critics ask, are the feminists engaging with other WOMEN this way?
Well, here's feminist lawyer Florynce Kennedy, who said...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florynce_Kennedy
Well, here's feminist lawyer Florynce Kennedy, who said...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florynce_Kennedy
"I just don’t see why some people don’t hit Phyllis Schlafly in the mouth" https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/firebrand
and who also said of Schlafly:
"I don't think she should be damaged seriously, but I don't think it would hurt her if somebody slapped her."
and
"Instead of so much argument, people should slap." https://www.newspapers.com/clip/24009197/flo_says_slap_phyllis/
"I don't think she should be damaged seriously, but I don't think it would hurt her if somebody slapped her."
and
"Instead of so much argument, people should slap." https://www.newspapers.com/clip/24009197/flo_says_slap_phyllis/
The New Yorker article linked above also quotes Betty Friedan telling Schlafly "I’d like to burn you at the stake".
I would have thought that it obvious that being a cis woman doesn't magically exempt one form being on the side of evil, or from being the target of some pretty serious feminist rage for that reason, but apparently this needed spelling out.
& transphobes have been threatening trans women with violence in the name of feminism for decades, often just for having the nerve to live unapologetically as women. Recent examples are ubiquitous, but Sandy Stone discusses a historical example here: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/zmd5k5/sandy-stone-biography-transgender-history
Again, I'm not saying you should like any of the behavior I'm talking about. Some of it you definitely shouldn't like. I'm not saying that these precedents make this a good or an acceptable approach...
...but I'm saying that "feminist" critics of "violent transactivists" are applying an egregious double standard where when cis women do this stuff, it doesn't render their movements illegitimate or make them not women, but when trans women do the same stuff, it does.
I'm saying that certain ostensible "feminists" who are willing to understand cis women's use of such language and imagery as expressive, hyperbolic, ironic, or metaphorical consistently fail to give trans women the benefit of the doubt in analogous situations.
Again, the above is meant to illustrate a variety of cases, not to be exhaustive. There's a lot more where this came from, especially if one is willing to treat every tweet as significant, which is the standard of evidence being used to justify "violent transactivists" worries.
& to those complaining that Lesbian Avengers fire eaters were doing harmless performance art & not violence:
YES. EXACTLY. THAT'S THE POINT.
The point is that the same line is equally applicable to the ostensibly violent Degenderettes color guard (which is a COLOR GUARD).
YES. EXACTLY. THAT'S THE POINT.
The point is that the same line is equally applicable to the ostensibly violent Degenderettes color guard (which is a COLOR GUARD).
And yet y'all keep sharing pictures of the latter with their baseball bats as evidence of actual violence, when you'd recognize that as completely ridiculous for the former with their fire.
Clarification: When I wrote "being a cis woman doesn't magically exempt one form being on the side of evil", it was because cis women were the demographic at issue, the truth of this claim does not hinge on it being about cis women rather than some other demographic...
...and indeed, anyone who thinks that some facts about their own demographics constitute irrefutable proof that they cannot possibly be participating in and enabling oppression is to be regarded with a fair amount of suspicion.
(The words "irrefutable proof" are doing a lot of work here. For the moment I have no interest in opening the can of worms of what might or might not be some sort of weaker evidence in this domain.)
I CAN'T EVEN
(content warnings: vivid descriptions of sexual violence, transphobic nonsense) https://twitter.com/DawnHFoster/status/1235019417970454528
(content warnings: vivid descriptions of sexual violence, transphobic nonsense) https://twitter.com/DawnHFoster/status/1235019417970454528
See also (with thanks to @doublehelix for the tip): https://medium.com/@notCursedE/a-short-history-of-angry-activists-45bbe04c0fdd
And also:
And as a semi-recent, mundane example: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2014/03/a-twitter-hashtag-probably-doesnt-prove-feminists-want-to-kill-all-men/359493/
And as a more historically remote extreme example, who is of course is an extremely non-representative case (just like the cherrypicked extreme examples of "violent transactivists" are mostly non-representative): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas
OH LOOK the "gender critical" set are yet again illustrating how they totally have a consistent understanding of what constitutes a "threat" and what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to using images and insinuations of violence in one's social & political advocacy.
Oh here's a good one for the "selectively violent readings" file: https://twitter.com/notCursedE/status/1280713038803369984
And here, enjoy some extremely nonviolent riot grrrl content.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/gallery/2013/jun/30/punk-music
https://www.theguardian.com/music/gallery/2013/jun/30/punk-music
