I think that this is a really good post, and full of a lot of interesting, thoughtful stuff.
Having said that, I do find myself jarred at certain moments. Take this point, for example:
Matthew Shepard wasn't murdered only because he was gay, but because he troubled his murderers' sense of their own masculinity and status as male. This stuff isn't simple. It's not simple at all. So I think it's a good idea to tread a little more lightly on each other's oppressions here while at an intersection.
I totally agree with this point, and think that it's an important point to make.
But when Riki Ann Wilchins made this same point shortly after Shepard's murder, she was criticized, strongly, for trying to appropriate a gay man's death into the struggle for freedom of gender expression / identity.
I guess, if I'm honest with myself, what I feel is that when trans people have been trying to talk about the complexities of gender identity and the way that gender is read -- not only in the context of trans lives, but also in the context of other intersecting or related identities -- we've either been ignored, or patted on the head and told that our ideas are quaint.
And it's only in the context of talking about cis privilege that all this complexity suddenly needs to be discussed and recognized.
What you're saying is important and I think that it's a great contribution of this conversation. But I can't say that I'm not torn in my reaction to it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-06 01:14 pm (UTC)Having said that, I do find myself jarred at certain moments. Take this point, for example:
I totally agree with this point, and think that it's an important point to make.
But when Riki Ann Wilchins made this same point shortly after Shepard's murder, she was criticized, strongly, for trying to appropriate a gay man's death into the struggle for freedom of gender expression / identity.
I guess, if I'm honest with myself, what I feel is that when trans people have been trying to talk about the complexities of gender identity and the way that gender is read -- not only in the context of trans lives, but also in the context of other intersecting or related identities -- we've either been ignored, or patted on the head and told that our ideas are quaint.
And it's only in the context of talking about cis privilege that all this complexity suddenly needs to be discussed and recognized.
What you're saying is important and I think that it's a great contribution of this conversation. But I can't say that I'm not torn in my reaction to it.