A Graphic Novel about Transgenderism
September 9, 2008
In between bouts of pure unmitigated evil, creating a comic book is good practice for my wickedness skills. It’s also an excuse to include lots of pretty images, which is the main component of a graphic novel. I still haven’t quite got the hang of it, though, as some horribly old-fashioned compulsion drives me to include actual words which when strung together form coherent sentences — clearly against the rules of both modern graphic novels AND transgenderism advocacy. Plus the cover doesn’t match the contents. No matter, it’s transgressive and that’s the important bit.
This is my first attempt, so be nice or you’ll hurt my fweelings and as the vanilla girls have taught us, if you hurt someone’s fweelings then your criticism must be wrong!!
The comic book is about Ivan, a gender-bender who dreams of a space where either gender matters a whole lot or gender doesn’t matter at all… which does seem to indicate that transgenderism is all about body parts upon which gender is dependent. Or something, I haven’t actually finished the whole book so it’s hard to tell at this point. Later chapters tackle all sorts, includings a section on contradictory premises. That means that all of the “supporting reasons” taken as a whole for each individual argument contradict each other — but this does not become obvious until one actually compares each argument and their supporting premises. For that, we need to find the truth.
Anyway, the introduction:
Personally, I was thrilled to pieces to finally figure out what all the liberal excitement was regarding gender-bending genitalia swapping: the transgender advocates point to the bit where Ivan unnaturalizes/unhooks/separates his masculine body from his feminine mind. Apparently, when Ivan is in the wrong body which doesn’t match his brain, this decouples internal character from body parts and is supposed to prove a conclusion of some kind.
Except that isn’t a conclusion at all; it’s only the first half of an argument. We know this to be true because at the same time that Ivan is shrinking one set of sex organs, he is also enhancing another set (or preparing to). To insist that this act of exchange be broken into two component parts and then have us only focus on one is misleading. It’s called transitioning for a reason — there is an exchange of body parts.
No logical conclusions can be drawn from only half of an argument. In order to have a full argument, we need the full conclusion which doesn’t happen until we look at the second half. And for that, we need to look at what happens when Ivan finally lands in his right body, which either involves body parts or gender roles, — impossible to discern at this point because I still can’t get a straight answer from the transfolks.
Some transpeople insist that certain genitalia make them happy, yet almost all of their emphasis appears to involve near-constant homage to artifical gender and gender roles; and almost zero awareness of masculinity and transsexuality as it intersects group-think constructs. In other words, my criticism is that the transgendered claim to be expanding gender roles for society at large but have failed miserably to conduct even the most rudimentary inquiry of cultural dynamics. They have elevated social constructs to a position representing a real physical entity instead of being regulated to the land of make-believe and coping mechanisms. By their insistence that social constructs are fixed entities which can only be bargained with under extremely limited conditions, the justification for body modification is created.
While discussing social constructs, the concept of “real” is frequently misued which causes confusion. Beliefs are “real” but are true or false, actions are “real” but are ethical or unethical, — only physical entities are uniquely “real” in that they take up physical space and exist objectively without an innate value judgement being present. A social construct is a belief, and therefore is either true or false. Which is why we get to say that gender as currently constructed is “false” and also “not real”.
Again, it is not the transfolk who are analyizing transsexuality as it intersects masculine and feminine gender, but radical feminists. Insisting on acceptance as a gender is the demand of a whining child, not gender deconstruction; and transgenderism cannot be assumed to decrease sexism when they offer no critical analysis of biological maleness as it intersects masculinity within cultural dynamics.
Transfolks are switching genitalia and symbols of gender, not arms or legs or kidneys, and if precision is truly the goal, then one must be clear. “I’m in the wrong body” isn’t truly accurate, but “My genitalia feels wrong” or “My gender role feels wrong” is accurate to a degree which apparently is beyond their capability and renders them speechless:
An interesting detour is that if tears are proof of anything besides sadness, it’s that many of the transgendered folks have some disjointed cognitive process splintering their brains. Tears do a fine job of proving sadness but amazingly enough do not prove the existence of a right. They continually point to other tearful groups who are the recipients of sympathy and then wonder why some withhold tissues from the transgendered. They apparently forget the implicit awareness that those other tearful groups were entitled to a right which was violated.
What do I mean specifically by that? Many seem to be conflating the right to live free from violence with the special pleading to be accepted as a gender. Their response to any negative criticism delineating the bloody fucking obvious is always a childish temper tantrum with their tears as “proof”. The right to live free from violence is a human right and yes any victim of violence has my sympathy; however pity for one right being violated does not transfer into automatic validation of a second demand.
A second point is that transfolk confuse subjective life experience (which is merely a perception or opinion) with validation of the ideology guiding that perception. Since they can’t or won’t accept that the definition of ideology does indeed apply to transgenderism, they perceive any negative criticism of that ideology as a personal attack. But in reality, a “subjective life experience” only proves that the person feels a certain way; emotions are not objective truth.
This is a logic problem, folks. If the transgendered are going to claim that “subjective life experience” proves that the underlying ideology guiding that life experience is valid, then the following are true as well: The life experience of pedophiles proves that sex with children is beneficial to pedophiles and as a consequence society should be looking for ways to mitigate the harm to children who are raped by pedophiles so that the benefit to pedophiles can continue. The life experience of females who have been raped by every male relative they know proves that all men are rapists and as a consequence all men should be leashed. The life experience of rapists prove that rape is good. The life experience of transitioning proves that transitioning is good. The life experience of alcoholics proves that they feel relief and more relaxed when other people stop trying to take away their bottle.
Once again some people are erroneously looking at the conclusion and from their opinion of the conclusion then decide whether or not the premise is valid. But “subjective life experience” does not provide evidence of anything besides the fact that someone either likes or dislikes their life experience.
Well gosh, this is nice. The act of body modification proves that modern medicine is amazing. It proves that a male doesn’t need a vagina to feel like his version of a female, because he has been insisting that he feels “like his version of a female” while still in possession of a penis. So we do know that a vagina is not required for a biological male to experience his version of “girly” character. So they have indeed separated possession of genitalia from perception of genitalia. I feel like I’m making progress here, don’t you?
But the act of body modification doesn’t prove a few things. It doesn’t prove that he knows what being female really feels like, for only a biological female can feel like a biological female. He can “feel similar to” a biological female yet can never “be” a biological female. Thus he can only experience his own perception of that which he believes is a genderized “woman”.
And now a few words about gender, and how that differs from biological sex. As far as I can tell, gender is an made-up artificial construct which has little or no bearing on reality. Biological sex is reality, is a physical entity, is a medically nuanced designation which has made it’s way into simplified common vernacular and is frequently confused with gender. One of the ways which helps me to keep them straight is to first attempt to use the term “biological female” when referring to “women” (and of course everybody else is welcome to do whatever they like). If the term “biological female” won’t work in the sentence, then the signifier must be referring to GENDER.
Oopsies, another problem. If gender is a made-up artifical construct while biological sex is a physical reality — and this statement does appear to be true — then our lovely transwoman Ivan can only claim to be a made-up artifical construct of an authentic biological female. Medical science cannot turn a biologicial male into a biological female, nor is that likely to be possible within the next 100 years, if ever, due to some very serious ethical limitations. Medical science can only alter the appearance of body parts. Thus, reality is that a transwoman will always be biologically male, that is reality, that is pure fucking truth without making any subjective value judgements whatsoever.
The act of body modification in and of itself fails to prove that sexism will either increase or decline as a result of body modification. In order to determine that, one must return to the subject of perception. In other words, how does Pat C. Public perceive body modification? To find out, we must finish the second half of the argument which began this post.
Whoops. In the final half of the argument and the only half which matters, Ivan concludes that his girly pink cock sucking doormat brain needs a vagina. He insists he has a mostly girl brain, and he insists he has a mostly girl character. He insists that all these mostly girly traits need a mostly girly body.
Patriarchy, that cultural relativism bullshit misogyny thingie that feminists claim to abhor; and Sexism, that eternal paternalistic rape machine, also insists that girl bodies have a mostly girl brain and a mostly girl character.
Perfect. Fucking. Match. Therefore, transgenderism cannot under any circumstance be said to decrease sexism. For anything to have the potential to decrease sexism, it must be oppositional to patriarchal standands — not perfectly in line with them. We can further say this: anything which reflects sexist dogma is likely to further encourage sexism.
Women have every reason and entitlement to be concerned about transgenderism. And to say otherwise is just another patriarchal silencing technique.