I am not a Man or a Woman, I am a transexual

I don't see how there's a huge amount to be discussed, the person you quoted seems to be just saying "it's a complicated situation and the best way to go is to create a world that can accommodate for such a situation".

Sounds about right to me.

admin - no flaming

I'm not sure what the point is of that statement.
Is he arguing against getting rights for trans people in their chosen (for want of a bettter word) gender on the grounds that it does not truly recognise theri choice? I think that allowing trans people to access services based on the gender they've chosen is practically useful and the example he's picked of going to prison to my mind supports that. I don't think it would be very safe to be a 'man with a vagina' in a male prison.

I can't tell if he's arguing 'don't bother with trans rights because capital will never properly grant them' but that seems to be it. I would agree that the alienation we feel based on gender, sexuality and a whole bunch of other things will not change unless we change the system that creates them but I don't think that gaining some practical things that help some people is a bad thing either.

Admin: Last chance.

A recognition that gender issues will never be totally resolved without a revolutionary change in society doesn't rule out agitating for improved conditions for trans people in the here and now, surely?

Admin: practice what you preach.

I thought the point was obvious; that the Hackney Pride march (no idea where Hackney is btw) is centred around the apparent freedoms of conventional middle-class gay men who have dropped any pretence of solidarity with "working class queers… who still live surrounded by homophobia, transphobia, sexism." Jamrat Mason, it seems, thinks this should be otherwise and that the pride march there could help in this project.

I can't see any question over full systemic change versus immediate reforms, but maybe others are aware of this being part of a broader argument that I'm not. In any case, arguing that pride marches and activism can help bring about an end to these things would suggest that he isn't waiting until ATR for things to get better.

Is Jamrat Mason part of A-Fed or something? Or were they just republishing it on their blog because they liked it?

I thought it was a good speech, anyway.

Yeah, he's in london AF.

Full speech now in the libcom library.

I don't see any reason why the situation couldn't be changed within the framework of our own society. Oh, actually I do. With the example, who exactly does this person want to search them, if not a man and not a woman? A transsexual? And if so, which type? A 'man with a vagina', to use the same words, or a woman with a penis? Or does it matter, would either suffice? I admit, I can see reasons why it may be improbable that a local police station could ever be able to provide a range of transsexuals for strip-searching other transsexuals. I don't actually think that a post-revolutionary society could really be expected to provide that, either. Nor could any society be realistically expected to provide dedicated prisons for transsexuals. Or, they could, but there would maybe be only one or two facilities nationwide, and then these people would surely complain that it's difficult for friends and family to travel so far to visit them.

To be honest, I don't think the fact that this person is transsexual is really the deal here. I think it's just tacked on to the statement at the end, of not liking the system, and not wanting to be arrested and strip-searched, with nothing to do with being transsexual. Unless the problem is that this person, presumably with the physical appearance of a man, may be too embarrassed to say to the arresting officer that he / she (I don't know which to use, as they don't seem to associate with either) is transsexual, and may(?) prefer to be searched by a female officer. I don't know...and I think that there could be a problem with all this, anyway, being able to choose what you are more comfortable with. In this way, a male, homo- or heterosexual, could request to be searched by a female officer. Perhaps the officer won't feel particularly comfortable doing so, and if anybody freely chooses to be searched by the gender that they feel sexually attracted to, there's a risk that this could be abusive. On the part of the prisoner, I mean. I think we could all imagine a drunk guy waving his semi-on around, making crude sexual comments towards the female he picked to search him. Though I guess the homosexuals are already automatically put into this position by having same-sex officers forced on them...

Wow, this really is a far from coherent post, I'm not even sure what I'm arguing here! Constantly changing from side to side. Would anybody like to take something out from it and refine it into a more focussed comment?

Along those lines?

That little excerpt is a mess, it doesn't make any discernible point beyond the fact prisons and the state is bad and some irrelevant shit about not wanting to get married, as if it is of political relevance, after all the state isn't forcing people to get married.

Obviously unless the state is overtly forcing people to do something it is of no political relevance. Ffs.

Haha, yeah, thanks for that, mate

I think it extends outside of that, too. Toilets and so on, I often hear about transsexuals getting a bit touchy about having to pick between the male or female toilet. Of course this problem would be solved with the addition of two more toilets, for the two subsections of transsexuals. But, really, is it the responsibility of, for instance, a restaurant, to provide two more toilets for the very small minority who would want them (and, in fact, it would of course draw attention to the transsexuals, so people could easily, I don't know, hang out in there waiting to beat people up, if they so wish), or should transsexuals make the best of what there is for them? I guess this also asks what we're supposed to do with those who identify as genderless, as well...do they want their own toilets, too? Or do they want 'genderless' as an option on the census form? I think it's a question of where we draw the line between making it easier for people who don't fit into the male-female system, and when we decide that we've done enough, and they should just learn to adapt themselves to the 'imperfect' parts of the system...

The whole excerpt is about personal freedoms, the issue of gay marriage is obviously political but it's not political in the sense that we should oppose it. I just don't buy into this bullshit about gay marriage being a sell out of 'queerness' as if there is something inherently radical or revolutionary about being gay or that there should be. Actually I don't see anything radical or revolutionary about rejecting marriage in contemporary western society.

the obvious answer is unisex toilets but that's utopian nonsense only workable in unfunny quirky tv series about a mental anorexic high flying lawyer.

anyway the speech overlooks the fact that the majority of transsexuals do identify as men or women and the more common issue is that of transwomen not being accepted/barred from female spaces etc

That's what I was wondering, I only read the extract.

Thanks for sharing that, not really the point that was being made. Marriage was being used above as an example of a part of a normative masculine role within soceity - the point being that such gender roles are often undesireable or impossible for transpeople. Hence the title of the thread: since transpeople will never be fully equal in a soceity where the gender binary is king, the only path to real freedom for trans people is one that challenges gender itself, and by extension the whole system of social relations of which gender is an integral part.

firstly the majority of transpeople don't seek to identify as an 'other' rather they wish to be accepted as either men or women.

secondly what are you on about marriage as being an example of the normative masculine role within society, in what way does gay marriage = normative masculine roles, do you think that one has to be the bride and one the groom? Furthermore straight marriage has less and less to do with normative roles, it has become for most people simply a statement of commitment to their lover with all the shit about honour and obey being jettisoned.

Basically I'm asking how anyone could claim that marriage either straight or gay is somehow oppressing them, no one is saying everyone has to get married, on the contrary there are bigots actively stopping gay couples from getting married and a few twats stuck in the 80's who think gays getting married is selling out.

Admins have just had to delete a load of flames and/or role-eyes premptively complaining about the quality of discussion. Newsflash: being a cock is what brings down the discussion, read the board rules.

I believe I was making a salient point actually, albeit by way of satire.
I don't see anything remarkable whatsoever about the speech quoted in the OP. It is the same gender essentialist argument disguised as gender subversion. What is a transsexual? A person who defines themselves as neither man nor woman, a person who therefore defines themselves in accordance with the same old gender binary, precisely like self-identified men and women.
The point that radical egalitarians should be making about gender is not that people whose gender is unorthodox socially but orthodox in relation to the binary, need special rights, it is that gender as a category of human society should become an irrelevance. Transsexual politics is the opposite of "abolishing gender" (as some dramatically put it) because it is inherently gendered.
Yes transsexual people face bigotry and violent attacks, and they should be defended and supported on these grounds, but this does not mean supporting genderist politics, for the same reason that fighting against racism doesn't require a "third worldist" political angle (indeed genuine anti-racism entirely precludes it)

nothing much to add, but:

and at mcsorleys

so, not unworkable

And I've seen many unisex toilet doors in Sweden, but these doors generally just lead to single-cubicle restrooms. I guess it would be workable to have unisex toilets with a variety of isolated cubicles. Though something tells me that the problem here would be women claiming they feel vulnerable and / or uncomfortable sharing their toilets with men. Or the other way round, of course. So I think this, as a solution for the trans issue, actually just shifts the discomfort from the minority to the majority. Which hardly solves the issue...

But me, I'd have no problem using a unisex toilet. But I don't know if many women would be as keen on the idea...women, tell us!

On a side note, which isn't actually serious: if the gents' is like the stereotype, and the ladies' is, too...what would a unisex toilet be like? Half way between the two, or would masculine filth overpower the perfume? Feminists, don't hurt me!

I thought the irony of unisex toilets being utopian was obvious, oops.

It has it's draw backs. Once I was at at this gayclub that had unisex toilets with a few friends and a laydee friend I wan interested in. Had me a mexican dish before I meet up with them and...o I bet you could finish the rest of the story.

When I opened the stall, she had a look of pure disgust on her face. I just tried not to look into her eyes.

yeah that's fair enough but I don't think his/their position is that representative of most transsexuals nor trans politics in general, which is much more focussed on transmen and women being recognised as men or women.

In terms of Jamrat I'm interested in why they know violently they aren't a woman, do they mean they aren't the gendered stereotype of the female sex or do they also mean a rejection of their biology? Also when you say he's a trans man who doesn't feally see himself as a 'real man' what does that mean, does it mean they don't identify with an idealised and stereotypical masculine identity?

Basically for me if you are born with a dick you are a man and if you are born with a vagina you are a woman (excluding the very rare more complex cases) but I think that's were the definition should end, we should look to do away with the narrow and restrictive gender roles that gets mapped to these basic biological categories, so that comments like 'feel like man or woman' are meaningless beyond the actual ability to feel you're sexual organs instead of being tied into gender ideals.

Thank you thank you! For people who want to break free from the binary gender idea, a lot of trans people sure do a good job in legitimising it! "I feel like a woman", as if to say that there is a particular way that men and women feel. Seems a contradiction of terms to then call the binary system inelastic...

In what sense are trans people an "extreme casualty? If in the sense that transexual people are subject to violent bigotry, then yes I agree, and as I've said above they are absolutely deserving of support in that respect. But if it's in the sense that trans means being more exposed to the psychological and social violence that gender implies, I don't agree. How is a trans person any more of a casualty than a woman who is addicted to cosmetic surgery or a man whose lifestyle consists only of macho posturing? Don't tell me this has nothing to do with identity politics because it clearly does. The whole idea of a "working class queer" smacks of it. You are a worker and that's that. If you experience violence because of who you fuck or how you dress you deserve support from your fellow workers. But if you want "pride" in "not feeling quite like a Real Man" (whatever the fuck that is) and all that shite, fuck off.
That is where I stand on this issue.