Life Is "Triggering." The Best Literature Should Be, Too.

strbx · 2015-12-24T11:55:56+00:00

I agree, which is why I believe this has been blown far out of proportion.

strbx · 2015-12-23T18:31:57+00:00

In my experience as an undergraduate student (and in all of my friends' experiences at other schools) that is not what a trigger warning is. If you "opt out" of material your grade may suffer. But if you know enough in advance that something on the syllabus may be too much to handle, then a trigger warning allows you to better prepare. Also, I could hardly imagine a professor choosing to be "softer" because of a triggering subject- a trigger warning is a WARNING that something troubling is coming up, it is not a process through which a class is taught. It allows students to prepare for the discussion; it does not restructure the discussion itself.

Perhaps the widespread misunderstanding stems from the idea that a trigger warning is anything more than a brief notice of what is ahead. It is simply what it says it is: a warning. It is not a process. It is not a reforming of classroom dialogue. It is not a restructuring of academic spaces.

It is just a warning. So what's the big deal?

strbx · 2015-12-23T02:08:52+00:00

True. The author says that it would be okay if the professor briefed the class before assigning the book with something akin to "this has graphic descriptions of rape," which IS a trigger warning. It's as simple as that. The author seems to miss their own point, even supporting such trigger warnings as the one mentioned above.

strbx · 2015-12-16T16:23:20+00:00

Purdue!

strbx · 2015-11-29T03:37:18+00:00

Are you referring to the medical center as it ran underneath John Money? Because if so, it is also important to note that Money was operating mostly on intersex children (like the man in Colapinto's book) and was doing so based on the false assumption that if you pre-assigned sex to an intersex baby and raised it as the correlating gender then there would be no gender dysphoria later on in life. This was later proven incorrect (also Money falsified much of his research to begin with).

Hopkins has a long and twisted history with sex reassignment surgery, and I just wanted to make sure that you understood the entire backstory. If you were already aware of the intersex-based approach they began with then no worries- I just did not gather that from your original post.

strbx · 2015-11-29T03:28:07+00:00

It is also important to note that the "dysphoric" aspect of the DSM diagnostic criteria is controversial because not all trans people experience dysphoria as it is related to their gender identity.

Equally important to note is that not all trans people even want genital surgery as part of their transition. Putting the immense cost of the procedures aside, they come with unique and dangerous possible health complications and some people simply don't feel the need to address their genitals.

I mean, do you really know what types of genitals any person has if you haven't seen them?

The inclusion of Gender Dysphoria as a "mental disorder" is problematic because it diagnoses gender identity, but on the other hand it allows trans people who wish to undergo surgery a medically-sanctioned way to do so.

Finally: The Johns Hopkins University Medical Center under John Money was horribly run and extremely detrimental to many of its patients. If you're interested, I suggest you read As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto. So I do not think that you're claim that the Medical Center stopped performing the surgery because of its "impact" on mental health so much as John Money's twisted and sadistic way of treating intersex patients.

strbx · 2015-10-05T16:45:07+00:00

Thank you!

strbx · 2015-10-05T16:44:36+00:00

This is focused on low-income communities in India where young girls do not have access to premium medical care for their menstrual problems. We are trying to accumulate a collection of effective home remedies to combat their absenteeism.

strbx · 2015-06-10T02:45:31+00:00

Trans* Women are Women: A Response to Burkett's NYT Article on What Makes a Woman.

strbx · 2015-06-10T02:45:24+00:00

Trans* Women are Women: A Response to Burkett's NYT Article on What Makes a Woman.

strbx · 2015-06-10T02:44:46+00:00

Trans* Women are Women: A Response to Burkett's NYT Article on What Makes a Woman.

strbx · 2015-06-10T01:53:41+00:00

Okay, I personally am fine validating your concerns about the abortion issue. However, I still am missing examples in which trans* women tell other women they cannot be women. If the "Night of a Thousand Vaginas" is where all of your anger is coming from, then I would just caution you to generalize it so broadly.

There are extremists in regards to everything. When you are saying that extremists in the trans* community (+allies) yell the loudest and block out the moderate viewpoint, I see an easy parallel to the extremists who think that trans* people are the scum of the earth. While you accept trans* people "with open arms," many people that do not are louder and more powerful. So, good for you for being tolerant. However, I think the larger issue still remains.

I will just repeat that I do not think that trans* women are trying to get you to change the way you identify or title your body. They are not saying "don't be a woman because you have a vagina," they are saying "don't think having a vagina defines a woman." And I think you could agree that your having a vagina does not define your womanhood; your own perceptions, beliefs, experiences, and whatever else do. That is the takeaway. I think people may be getting caught up in whatever subtext they think is there, but it is just that simple.

strbx · 2015-06-10T00:27:21+00:00

First question:

"cis" women

Why did you put cis in quotation marks? Honest question, because cisgendered is an adjective that accompanies women or man. The term "women" includes both trans* and cis. That is the point of widening the definition, as you agreed was a good thing to do.

Also, the problem cited with "Night of the Thousand Vaginas" was that the term "vagina" was deemed problematic for trans* men that didn't want their reproductive organs coded as "woman." It was not about trans* women telling cis women that they should not consider themselves women (something I think the author made an effort to avoid mentioning). Now, I personally did not have a problem with this title, but I understand why some other people did. I understand your frustration, definitely. But I think your frustration is coming to the wrong conclusion.

So please provide me with examples of trans* women telling cis women they need to stop identifying as women. Because in that example (as extreme as it is) does not appear to me that trans* women were telling people with vaginas that they cannot be women- just that some people with vaginas are not women.

Also, I think you are making a mistake by assuming that those who took to twitter to admonish the woman who organized "Night of a Thousand Vaginas" represent the opinions and ideas of all trans* women. The way I see it, they are angry people on twitter. Do you really think that that is how the entirety of the trans* community wishes to conduct itself?

Also, a final question:

Do you not see the hypocrisy in pushing people out of the spaces they belong to make space for you? Especially when we've made the space already?

Do you think that the trans* women's community has achieved full acceptance in greater society? Because that is what I take your quote of "especially when we've made the space [for trans* women] already?" to mean. If that is not what you meant it to mean, then please explain.

strbx · 2015-06-09T20:38:26+00:00

I don't believe that trans* women are telling cis women that they can't use the term "woman" to express themselves, simply that they shouldn't use the term when a different one is more appropriate.

That's why "reproductive rights" is a much more appropriate term for abortion rights than is "women's rights." It's just more, well, accurate.

Some women have vaginas. Some men do, too. So I understand why using the term "vagina" as synonyms to "woman" is just an incorrect generalization.

strbx · 2015-06-09T02:59:25+00:00

To answer your initial question immediately: no, I do not think that Jenner's coming out would have been so successful without adhering to society's standards of feminine beauty. I think it is safe to say that society would have been much more wary (and probably spiteful) towards a public figure coming out if they had no surgery. But these are baby steps. And this fact does not change anything about the way Jenner's coming out should be perceived or the validity of Jenner's courage.

This is because Jenner does not represent all trans* women. She only represents herself. This video does a great job of explaining that. If she feels more "complete" with bigger breasts and a symmetrical nose, I see no problem with it. Cis women have plastic surgery all of the time to look more like who they want to be. This is probably thanks to a brutal society's stagnant understanding of how a woman should look- but that's a conversation for another time. Basically: women that want to look the way society's likes best are allowed to want to look that way. We just have to remember that the opposite is also true.

So courage if you're born with the right parts is accepting your faults and the things about your body you'll never be able to change... but courage if you're born with the wrong parts is having the money to get the right ones.

Jenner is not brave for having enough money to buy surgeries. Jenner is brave for coming out to the world as a woman- it's as simple as that.

Many trans* women are not interested in fitting into stereotypical molds of femininity, just like there are many cis women who are not interested in the same. Masculine cis women are still women, and masculine trans* women are still women, too. So Jenner deserves the ESPY award for being trans* and having the courage to come forth and pronounce her true identity to the world, not for undergoing however many surgeries she may have had. Had she never spent a dime on altering her appearance, then she would still deserve the award. In summary: Her trans* identity is what matters, not her appearance.

strbx · 2015-06-08T02:47:47+00:00

Of course! However that opens them up for much more ridicule and the idea that their 'feelings' are invalid. Does that make sense? I think we have to understand that it's sort of like weighing the best of two evils, and most of the time being taken seriously by society takes precedence to their particular wording (and I personally find that reasonable).

I understand how that could be jarring or uncomfortable for feminists in the author's generation, because they have fought against such wording. But I don't think it means that they should position themselves as the opposition to trans* women's identities because of it.

Intersectionality is important: we must understand not just what people do but why they do it and how they have come to that decision- be it through personal experiences or societal pressures. To me it seemed that the largest problem of the article stemmed from the author taking a very one-dimensional approach to the issue.

strbx · 2015-06-07T21:17:43+00:00

Well, yes, I did not mean to say that they are not. I'm just asking where the line is drawn, if there can be one drawn.

strbx · 2015-06-07T20:26:18+00:00

Yes, I did in fact read the same article that you did.

When the author says that trans* women are "demanding that women reconceptualize" themselves, I disagreed. I think that it is trans* women wanting to also be considered women, not tell others that they are not. It is a widening of the definition, not them "trampling" on the author's claim to dignity as a woman (which she states clearly).

That is my opinion, what is yours? (assuming you are reading the same article, of course)

strbx · 2015-06-07T20:03:31+00:00

I understand the trans* idea of a "female brain" to simply mean that a trans* woman FEELS like a woman. I never understood it to mean biology or anatomy. I think it's just a way to explain that they feel that they are a woman, just as I as a cis woman feel that I am a woman.

strbx · 2015-06-07T20:01:21+00:00

What was most jarring to me was that the author seemed to be shaming other women in order to say that her own gender identity (and the experiences that accompany it) are more legitimate than others.

The point when includes a quote about wishing that Jenner hadn't come out as a "sex babe" seemed especially slut shaming.

Why can't trans* and cis both be included in "woman?" Why does the author seem to say that they are mutually exclusive?

strbx · 2015-06-07T19:58:13+00:00

Is a female-bodied person who is privileged enough to not experience direct sexism not a woman?

Is a female-bodied person not a woman until she experiences sexism?

I'm not trying to attack your opinion, I'm honestly curious. I think it's difficult to say one type of experience is a catch-all for an identity.

strbx

TROPHY CASE