The only thing I have desired in my adult life is to talk about books I like with people. How hard can that possibly be, right?
Dante Must Die Mode. It seems like 95% of the time I'd be more productive holding people up at gunpoint and treating it like an interrogation. Sucks to suck; the precious few times I've been able to do it, that shit's like a drug. Please, I beg of you, we can talk about this forever, I have headcanons and fundamental misunderstandings!
Something that's been rolling around my head for years now is that, in Nevada by Imogen Binnie Orange Book Bad, there's this one bit where Maria Griffiths in her narration observes some total bullshit about genderqueer identities, which is not epic and I'm actually gonna cw for transphobia:
QUOTE
Not to mention, if you are a total baby panda at Internet communities asking, like, How do I get hormones, Internet trans women are very nice: they will tell you. But when you ask a more complicated question, like say, how do you resolve a genderqueer identity with a female identity when it seems like acknowledging the restraints of female identity and then bursting them doesn’t make you no longer female, just empowered, and therefore is genderqueer a privileged identity that’s mostly available to female-assigned people with punk rock haircuts, in college, everybody gets all butt-hurt and you get in trouble.
ENDQUOTE
Wow, I should post literal Nevada quotes online more often. This is fun!!
Anyway on its face this is stupid for a whole fucking mess of reasons I'm pretty sure, like Orange Book Bad itself references Gender Outlaw once or twice, (slightly dimly, fwiw) and this kind of read is noooot compatible with Bornstein's read of gender as a class system. Ah yes, a non-cis identity is privileged and only available to one assigned gender...? Fuck off with that. It's sort-of consistent with Binnie's short I Met A Girl Named Bat in 2012's The Collection as well, which uses "both genders" once, maybe just for the sake of being an asshole.
The thing is, I have constantly wondered if I am missing something, or this is a bit or whatever, like an inside joke.This read feels kind of fucking stupid, but I don't have any other evidence by which to prove or disprove its shittiness. You can also observe that most people would rightly not bother, and dismiss it as a dogshit take. I'm slightly biased though, if Orange Book Bad is shitty, I desire to know exactly on what level and why.
Another factor is that someone could crawl out of the woodwork and be like "I lived next to a trans girl who said she was friends with Binnie, its actually a brilliant deliberate example of what an immovably awful person Maria is, Binnie said so" or something like that. I have low knowledge about this specific brainrot subject of books, so that's a possibility. I only want to understand shit.
now i still haven't read nevada, BUT i do have some knowledge on (some permutations of) this discourse. i could definitely see this being an intentional she's an asshole thing, but it's not unheard of for trans women to have problems with this sort of thing. this specifically reads as truscum rhetoric (especially given it sitting right next to "how do i get hormones" which kinda frames hrt and medical transition as the good trans and genderqueer afab people as the bad ones) but even outside truscum spaces there are some transfem people who are very bitter about transmisogyny and lash out at trans people who they see as more privileged (the bitterness isn't unjustified but obviously taking it out on other trans people like that is) and who are viewed as perpetuating transmisogyny (which many tme people do but like, that doesn't make them not trans)
one specific complaint is that these genderqueer afab people are often just seen as women by society at large and therefore don't have to face the level of transphobia of more binary trans people, especially trans women. ti ve clear this is bullshit, genderqueer identities being seen as just quirky women is itself pretty self evidently transphobia. while i am not entirely unsympathetic to some of the things that lead to this line of thinking (there are obviously some genderqueer people who enact transmisogyny, even if there are obviously way more cis people who do) it is still incredibly harmful and any transmisogyny in tme trans spaces can and must be addressed in ways that do not invalidate other people's transness. the term "theyfab" (which i don't like and think is bad) is used by some in this context. sometimes it's to make a specific point about, for example, spaces that exclude amab trans people but welcome afab trans people (a real problem! still doesn't justify what feels to me like tacit misgendering) but sometimes it's just a derogatory way to talk about the group and implicitly deny their transness
anyways that's where i feel like this is coming from. obviously cannot promise this is specifically what's going on, and im very tired so i might be missing something or communicating poorly. lotta discourse, im not an expert, but that's the vibes i get. hope this was helpful, im going to sleep now so if it wasn't i can't help
Yes, that was my instant assumption too. It reads very similarly to "just woman-lite" arguments used against nonbinary people. It's sickeningly ironic in this case because Orange Book Bad references Bornstein and Serano, it's how I was introduced to Gender Outlaw and Whipping Girl, so it's not like the author is unaware? Which, I don't really desire to CANCEL IMOGEN BINNIE or whatever, the trouble is that Maria Griffiths kind of seems like a self insert in many ways, oops. It blows me away that a binary trans person could see genders outside the binary as being privileged, lol. The main reason I lean away from the theoretical "It's deliberate, it's about how Maria is an asshole!" argument is that for pretty much every other bit of blogosphere-quasi-lecturing-narration, Maria says very agreeable stuff and it seems like the reader is meant to agree so Idk.
Even if it were true that gq afab people were "just seen as women by society" that would not make them exempt from transphobia and discrimination anyway, yes!!!! You know what though, Nevada does have a lil passage about spaces that allow afab trans people but not amab:
God no, Maria says. Are you kidding? How am I going to do that, and how am I going to do that with my junk the way it is, and anyway: bio-cock.
Piranha spends a lot of her time reading the Internet, so she’s super up on, like, everything. She probably doesn’t go to sex parties, although Maria hasn’t asked. But she’s talked a lot about this thing where there are lesbian sex parties that happen in the city and how they will often have No Bio-Cock Policies, meaning, No Trans Women. Or, optimistically, Trans Women: Keep Your Pants On. Meanwhile trans guys are welcome to brandish whatever cocks they want. Kind of frustrating, kind of problematic, and deeply representative of Maria’s own issues with her junk—even if she’s never actually had a partner who had issues around it. The term bio-cock has become shorthand for the fact that trans women aren’t sexually welcome in any communities anywhere.
Of course the text is sort of unrelentingly shitty about it, and also I have never heard the term which is probably a gen x thing, so that's a funny thing. Nevada is not a book that's kind to other trans people (JUST WAIT TILL YOU HEAR ABOUT ITS TAKES ON TRANS MEN!) and it's probably the aspect of it I hate the most. This is kinda like the primordial roots of the Bad Discourse that led to TME/TMA being adopted to start!
Sorry to hear that ur tired (sleep! sleep is good!) but I greatly appreciate the insight, you have connected a few dots in my brain I think. The more I look at this, the less there seems to be plausible deniability - or even if it's an intentional show of the protagonist being shitty, it's kind of going too far with it. Like, if the reader was not interested in hearing Maria's ridiculous stream of consciousness after this, I would not blame them in the slightest. Of course I have brainrot anyway, so but very good stuff.
I think this specific issue with Nevada is very emblematic of Imogen Binnie's brand of trans feminism (at least at the time, I can't remember if it's addressed in the second edition's afterword). The book is very white and very american, and Maria is shown to be relatively privileged. It's to the point where I don't fault anyone for not being able to read, enjoy, or relate to it for reasons past the blogpost narration.
the trouble is that Maria Griffiths kind of seems like a self insert in many ways, oops. It blows me away that a binary trans person could see genders outside the binary as being privileged, lol. The main reason I lean away from the theoretical "It's deliberate, it's about how Maria is an asshole!" argument is that for pretty much every other bit of blogosphere-quasi-lecturing-narration, Maria says very agreeable stuff and it seems like the reader is meant to agree so Idk.
I do kinda get that feeling of Maria being a self-insert in many ways which kinda taints the book a bit. However I also see Maria as a great example of "bad representation" in that while her character embodies some important parts of the trans experience, she's still a somewhat problematic and messy individual who exemplifies the parts of the trans experience that aren't spotlighted anywhere else. Whether it's intentional or not is definitely arguable and it definitely wasn't necessary to tell the story Imogen Binnie wanted to write, but I think that it could also just a product of the time it was written in.
Wow, I should post literal Nevada quotes online more often. This is fun!!
Yes indeed, Nevada is a 0 intersectionalism text, which is deeply annoying since it's half a cultural touchstone. It's weird too because a few times Maria does point out stuff like say, getting the benefit of the doubt for being tall, white and attractive, but it's kind of nothing more than lipservice when shit like the above is being said too. I actually dunno how much I could recommend it anymore tbh...
She works the same job that Imogen Binnie did, the Camp Trans/Michigan Womyns Festival shit is definitely a Binnie thing 'cause iirc she met some Topside writers there irl, I have always considered her to be a mouthpiece. You are right though about the "bad representation" thing, and I think that's why Nevada has such staying power. (with me, at least, lmao) Maria sucks so bad and I love her, I never get tired of seeing her total all of her relationships and fuck everything up 'cause she's all messed up and sad the abrasiveness is part of the appeal, right?
I just kinda feel like the shit she says about genderqueer people and trans men are over the line, from "messy and problematic" to "divisive wrecker", I guess. I have seen it put people off once or twice, and I'm not convinced the book would not be improved if you just cut this bs about trans men "taking up space from trans women" and whatever.
Also it's weird because Nevada being big means that a lot of subsequently influenced trans fiction (Detransition Baby, Tell Me I'm Worthless, Manhunt) lean into the whole, gen-x-transfemme-who-browsed-fictionmania thing a lot, which I think is a bit quaint to most people now. It's definitely unique!
Actually unironically, if I'd known this was gonna go so well I would have aired my grievances with Nevada way sooner. This thread is great & everyone in it is lovely
as a tme trans person with some passing familiarity in this discourse i don’t feel particularly offended by these kinds of comments because I know that because of transmisogyny i have structural privilege over tma trans people. so a transfemme making a snarky comment about trans men or afab gq people, even if it dips into some unideal “invalidating gender” territory, isn’t nearly on the same level as the violent transmisogyny that gets perpetrated from those groups.
i’ve yet to read whipping girl which is on my reading list but i think serano discusses the divide between tme/tma trans people a bit too. ultimately i think it’s more important for us tme trans people to deal with transmisogyny in our communities first, because these kinds of comments are just a reaction to the dynamics of unrecognized privilege and violent exclusion in these transmisogynistic trans spaces. idk, just my thoughts though and i don’t want to invalidate your experience with nevada especially as I haven’t read it.
I'm glad at least to see that the quotes aren't that offensive to their targets, lol. I agree that it's nothing like the violent transmisogyny we experience, to me I guess it's about yet more divisive shit in the trans community, and also maybe that anger could be directed at dogshit cis people who commit the vast majority of that violent transmisogyny, instead of our comrades? It seems kind of bastardy to be bitterly invalidating people's genders instead? Down with cis? Just spitballing, Idk. I don't disagree with your comment overall, I appreciate the alternate view actually. Doesn't invalidate my experience :)
Man I still gotta read Whipping Girl, look at me being a genderlib and not reading theory!
These last two comments reminded me about a specific part of Whipping Girl that I think can elaborate a bit on the kind of thinking that informed Imogen Binnie and possibly led to these views.
In the last chapter of Whipping Girl, Serano touches on the topic of subversivism within the feminist movements of the time (90s to the early 10's).
There's quite a bit more than what I've put below, but I remember feeling conflicted when I first finished this chapter. Obviously today definitions have changed and the idea of political lesbians and genderqueer identities has shifted. I wanted to understand more after finishing the book in regards to this topic but the trans spaces I looked in were severely lacking in even basic transmisogyny discussion, so I had no hope of finding more on it.
Passages attached
The practice of subversivism also negatively impacts trans people on the
MTF spectrum. After all, in our culture, the meanings of “bold,” “rebellious,”
and “dangerous”—adjectives that often come to mind when considering
subversiveness—are practically built into our understanding of masculinity. In
contrast, femininity conjures up antonyms like “timid,” “conventional,” and
“safe,” which seem entirely incompatible with subversion. Therefore, despite
the fact that the mainstream public tends to be more concerned and disturbed
by MTF spectrum trans people than their FTM spectrum counterparts,
subversivism creates the impression that trans masculinities are inherently
“subversive” and “transgressive,” while their trans feminine counterparts are
“lame” and “conservative” in comparison. Subversivism’s privileging of trans
masculinities over trans femininities helps to explain why cissexual queer
women and FTM spectrum folks tend to dominate the queer/trans community:
Their exceptional gender expressions and identities are routinely empowered
and encouraged in such settings. In contrast, there is generally a dearth of MTF
spectrum folks who regularly inhabit queer/trans spaces.
To me, the most surreal part of this whole transgressingversus-reinforcing-
gender-norms dialogue in the queer/trans community (and in many gender
studies classrooms and books) is the unacknowledged hypocrisy of it all. It is
sadly ironic that people who claim to be gender-fucking in the name of
“shattering the gender binary,” and who criticize people whose identities fail
to adequately challenge our societal notions of femaleness and maleness,
cannot see that they have just created a new gender binary, one in which
subversive genders are “good” and conservative genders are “bad.” In a sense,
this new gender binary isn’t even all that new. It is merely the original
oppositional sexist binary flipped upside down. So now, gender-
nonconforming folks are on top and gender-normative people are on the bottom
—how revolutionary! Now, I understand the temptation for a marginalized
group to turn the hierarchy that has oppressed them upside down, as it can feel
very empowering to finally be atop the pecking order, but it’s absurd to claim
that such approaches in any way undermine that binary. If anything, they only
serve to reinforce it further.
I believe that if the transgender movement had simply continued to view
itself as an alliance of disparate groups working toward a shared goal (like
making the world safer for gender-variant folks), it may have avoided such
exclusivity while respecting the distinct differences and specific concerns of
its various constituents. Instead, by promoting the idea that we must move
beyond the supposedly outdated concept of “identity,” the transgender
movement has created its own sense of “oneness.” Rather than viewing
ourselves as a fragile political coalition of distinct subgroups, some activists
instead encourage us to see ourselves as one big homogeneous group of
individuals who blur gender boundaries. Rather than learning to respect the
very different perspectives and experiences that each transgender subgroup
brings to the table, the transgender community has instead become a sort of
gender free-for-all, where identities are regularly co-opted by others within
the community. These days, many transs*xuals assume that they have the right
to appropriate the language of, or speak on behalf of, intersex people;
similarly, many cissexual genderqueers feel they have the right to do the same
for transs*xuals. This needlessly erases each group’s unique issues, obstacles,
and perspectives.
This sort of “gender anarchy”—where individuals are free to adopt or
appropriate any identity as they please—might seem very limitless and freeing
on the surface, but in practice it resembles gender-libertarianism, where those
who are most marginalized become even more vulnerable to the whims of
those who are more established. In this case, it leaves those of us who are
cross-gender-identified susceptible to negation at the hands of the greater
cissexual queer community. Indeed, it has become increasingly common for
people who are primarily queer because of their sexual orientation to claim a
space for themselves within the transgender movement.7 This is particularly
true in the queer women’s community, which has become increasingly involved
in transgender politics and discourses due to the recent sharp increase in the
number of (1) previously lesbian-identified people transitioning to male, (2)
dykes who now take on genderqueer or other FTM spectrum identities, and (3)
non-trans queer women who seek a voice in the transgender community
because they are partnered to FTM spectrum individuals.
Because of our history, the fact that cissexual queers now dominate
transgender and queer/trans communities and discourses is highly problematic
for those of us who are transs*xual.
Oooooh look at this ✨ holy shit it's incredible... You know...
subversivism creates the impression that trans masculinities are inherently “subversive” and “transgressive,” while their trans feminine counterparts are “lame” and “conservative” in comparison.
Now I think about it, Kieran and Maria kind of play this silly dichotomy out exactly, that must be intentional I suppose. But yes, I can see the whole-ass roots of Nevada's weirdo takes right here, I feel like I put on the shades from They Live this is fuckin awesome. Take a shot every time bad actors in the trans community recreate a gender binary. I know what "oppositional sexism" is! Kinda scuffed, again, claiming that non-binary gender identities are "on top", like even just today I've watched a nonbinary person get conversationally trodden upon by binary trans women, what horseshit.
I do actually find it kind of fascinating that Serano takes it back to queer unity though, that's very interesting. But uh
These days, many transs*xuals assume that they have the right to appropriate the language of, or speak on behalf of, intersex people; similarly, many cissexual genderqueers feel they have the right to do the same for transs*xuals. This needlessly erases each group’s unique issues, obstacles, and perspectives.
What does this mean, lol. Please do not tell me that cissies have been stealing our language behind my back??? I beg of you... "Gender libertarianism" is fucking hilarious though. But this whole thing is fascinating, dang. I have been enlightened, and it turns out the solution was just to read theory all along!!! It almost reads like Maria misread Whipping Girl now, lol
These days, many transs*xuals assume that they have the right to appropriate the language of, or speak on behalf of, intersex people; similarly, many cissexual genderqueers feel they have the right to do the same for transs*xuals. This needlessly erases each group’s unique issues, obstacles, and perspectives.
So this is one of those parts that Serano intentionally left unchanged in later editions and Whipping Girl's age becomes apparent again. Serano herself, and from what I gather- queer activism of the time, made the distinction between Transgender and MTF identities (MTF being anyone born male that displays exceptional feminine traits, qualities, or behaviors but can identify as their assigned gender or otherwise. Transgender being anybody who displays exceptional cross-gender traits, qualities, or behaviors but can identify as their assigned gender or otherwise) and Transs*xuals. (Essentially what we acknowledge today as transgender, meaning someone who identifies with a gender that's incongruent with their assigned gender.)
I'll attach a passage at the end where she goes into it a bit as well.
In this passage Serano is saying that cissexual genderqueers (meaning cissexuals who identify as genderqueer due to politics or potentially people who do not feel within the gender binary but also do not identify with transs*xuals.) had a tendency to speak for trans individuals while not entirely being affected by the same societal systems and pressures.
I feel like I explained it badly but the messiness is a product of the age of the text I think.
Now that we understand “sex” and “gender,” we can begin to consider the
word transgender, which is perhaps one of the most confusing and
misunderstood words in the English language. While the word originally had a
more narrow definition, since the 1990s it has been used primarily as an
umbrella term to describe those who defy societal expectations and
assumptions regarding femaleness and maleness; this includes people who are
transs*xual (those who live as members of the sex other than the one they were
assigned at birth), intersex (those who are born with a reproductive or sexual
anatomy that does not fit the typical definitions of female or male), and
genderqueer (those who identity outside of the male/female binary), as well as
those whose gender expression differs from their anatomical or perceived sex
(including crossdressers, drag performers, masculine women, feminine men,
and so on). I will also sometimes use the synonymous term gender-variant to
describe all people who are considered by others to deviate from societal
norms of femaleness and maleness.
The far-reaching inclusiveness of the word “transgender” was purposely
designed to accommodate the many gender and sexual minorities who were
excluded from the previous feminist and gay rights movements. At the same
time, its broadness can be highly problematic in that it often blurs or erases the
distinctiveness of its constituents. For example, while male crossdressers and
transs*xual men are both male-identified transgender people, these groups face
a very different set of issues with regards to managing their gender difference.
Similarly, drag queens and transs*xual women generally have very different
experiences and perspectives regarding gender, despite the fact that they are
often confused with one another by mainstream society.
...okay that's really strange, huh. That's not a definition I've ever heard of in my life and it doesn't make any sense to me, not a word of it. So needlessly complicated and weird, thank fuck I was not on trans internet in 2007 because wtf.
I see, are there really "political genderqueers"? Huh, now I don't understand anything anymore
Is... the entire book steeped in ridiculous crusty terminology like this? A crisis, I wonder if I read Gender Outlaw wrong by not having this bizarro definition of "transgender" in mind. Maybe I am a lib.
I imagine that there were at the time in the same way there were political lesbians. Their existence would connect back with subversivism and the desire to 'break the gender binary'.
Is... the entire book steeped in ridiculous crusty terminology like this?
Unfortunately it's definitely spread throughout the book, but Serano does well to front-load the definitions. She goes into it a bit in the 2nd editions preface.
While the major themes that I forward in Whipping Girl remain just as vital and relevant today as they were when I was first writing the book, some of the specific descriptions and details will surely seem increasingly dated as time marches on. So in this preface to the second edition, I want to place the book in historical context, as it most certainly was a reaction to what was happening in society, and within activist and academic circles, during the early-to-mid aughts (or “the zeros,” as I prefer to call the first decade of this millennium). While a decade is not a huge amount of time in the grand scheme of things, it certainly feels like a lifetime ago when it comes to public understandings and discussions about transgender people.
There's actually a third edition now! It just came out last month and she included an extended afterword where she goes into the "basic biology" argument as well as the topic of "trans grooming."
I don't know any of those specific books but I feel the exact same way about talking about books with people. I want to have a non-banal conversation with someone. Anyone. About anything. But they're vanishingly rare, and usually just about personal experience not about any shared topic like a book or article we both read, because nobody fucking reads anything anymore :(
So relatable, part of the issue I think is that forums have died, so where can you go to discuss books? and the gamer chat app. Sucks hard. This extremely fun & enriching example you see is the result of me strivinf and suffering for like three years straight through dead-end conversations and clownish individuals.
If you haven't you can always just post about whatever in the megas, or as a post in a comm? It took a little work (lots of posting) but it's been great posting about say, Unjust Depths on here. I look forward to it every single day.
I haven't had a lot of luck posting here about specific books that aren't like, super common reads or current book club books, though when I do get a reply its usually good, if a bit short! I honestly just wish anyone IRL would engage with this stuff with me. I like people here but I really want to hear my friends' thoughts
I can talk to friends about the books I'm reading at least! but I can't even get them to read the same articles as me so we have no common material to work from and I have no sanity check for how I'm reading/interpreting the text :/
technology delenda est. I used to be the biggest reader I knew when I was a kid, now I'm still one of the biggest but only because everyone else doesn't have the attention span to read 1 (one) book and I can sometimes burn through one or two when I'm in the right headspace
Yeah that's super fucking annoying, it sucks. One of the reasons I'm so neurotic about weirdbooks is that I can ONLY work from my own frame of reference. I have no way to sanity check myself, or even just to hear alternate views or whatever to expand my understanding. As a result, my takes on certain novels are extremely myopic, like Nevada!! I relish getting to talk with other people who have read the thing ❤
I never got why it's like that, I have a lot of computers and whatever and I still read a fair bit, because words on a page are cool. I fuckin love when readable text is presented in paragraphs!
I have a lot of computers and whatever and I still read a fair bit, because words on a page are cool.
Amen to that
I am finally reading through This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong and its absolutely fascinating and amazingly well written. If anything it's better at nearly 100 years old than I imagine it was in the 30s
its really cool to hear an unabashedly pro-soviet perspective from the most demonized period in the USSR's history (under Stalin). She's so charismatic, and direct experiences of how the soviet economic and political organizing worked are so fascinating. I haven't finished it yet but every little tidbit of how people took to it and ran with it is so inspiring, and I think the later chapters will cover more of how changing society subsequently changed people! I read some from the scuffed PDF copy a while back, but now I found a physical copy to borrow which I am immensely lucky for!
Its a great primer on communism tbh, as long as you can get over the positive mentions of stalin (makes it a tougher rec for libs but super eye opening for anyone else who isn't deeply well read about the ussr, IMO)
This sounds like a phenomenal read, I was having a moment about China's policies around children and religion so I'm very in the mood to get hyped about AES countries I think. Thanks for the elaboration :)
I am ready to hear good things about Uncle Joe, it is April 10th and he did in fact save the world from fascism.
Trans Mega, but I terrify you with nonsense
The only thing I have desired in my adult life is to talk about books I like with people. How hard can that possibly be, right?
Dante Must Die Mode. It seems like 95% of the time I'd be more productive holding people up at gunpoint and treating it like an interrogation. Sucks to suck; the precious few times I've been able to do it, that shit's like a drug. Please, I beg of you, we can talk about this forever, I have headcanons and fundamental misunderstandings!
Something that's been rolling around my head for years now is that, in
Nevada by Imogen BinnieOrange Book Bad, there's this one bit where Maria Griffiths in her narration observes some total bullshit about genderqueer identities, which is not epic and I'm actually gonna cw for transphobia:QUOTE
ENDQUOTE
Wow, I should post literal Nevada quotes online more often. This is fun!!
Anyway on its face this is stupid for a whole fucking mess of reasons I'm pretty sure, like Orange Book Bad itself references Gender Outlaw once or twice, (slightly dimly, fwiw) and this kind of read is noooot compatible with Bornstein's read of gender as a class system. Ah yes, a non-cis identity is privileged and only available to one assigned gender...? Fuck off with that. It's sort-of consistent with Binnie's short I Met A Girl Named Bat in 2012's The Collection as well, which uses "both genders" once, maybe just for the sake of being an asshole.
The thing is, I have constantly wondered if I am missing something, or this is a bit or whatever, like an inside joke.This read feels kind of fucking stupid, but I don't have any other evidence by which to prove or disprove its shittiness. You can also observe that most people would rightly not bother, and dismiss it as a dogshit take. I'm slightly biased though, if Orange Book Bad is shitty, I desire to know exactly on what level and why.
Another factor is that someone could crawl out of the woodwork and be like "I lived next to a trans girl who said she was friends with Binnie, its actually a brilliant deliberate example of what an immovably awful person Maria is, Binnie said so" or something like that. I have low knowledge about this specific brainrot subject of books, so that's a possibility. I only want to understand shit.
i like talking books!
now i still haven't read nevada, BUT i do have some knowledge on (some permutations of) this discourse. i could definitely see this being an intentional she's an asshole thing, but it's not unheard of for trans women to have problems with this sort of thing. this specifically reads as truscum rhetoric (especially given it sitting right next to "how do i get hormones" which kinda frames hrt and medical transition as the good trans and genderqueer afab people as the bad ones) but even outside truscum spaces there are some transfem people who are very bitter about transmisogyny and lash out at trans people who they see as more privileged (the bitterness isn't unjustified but obviously taking it out on other trans people like that is) and who are viewed as perpetuating transmisogyny (which many tme people do but like, that doesn't make them not trans)
one specific complaint is that these genderqueer afab people are often just seen as women by society at large and therefore don't have to face the level of transphobia of more binary trans people, especially trans women. ti ve clear this is bullshit, genderqueer identities being seen as just quirky women is itself pretty self evidently transphobia. while i am not entirely unsympathetic to some of the things that lead to this line of thinking (there are obviously some genderqueer people who enact transmisogyny, even if there are obviously way more cis people who do) it is still incredibly harmful and any transmisogyny in tme trans spaces can and must be addressed in ways that do not invalidate other people's transness. the term "theyfab" (which i don't like and think is bad) is used by some in this context. sometimes it's to make a specific point about, for example, spaces that exclude amab trans people but welcome afab trans people (a real problem! still doesn't justify what feels to me like tacit misgendering) but sometimes it's just a derogatory way to talk about the group and implicitly deny their transness
anyways that's where i feel like this is coming from. obviously cannot promise this is specifically what's going on, and im very tired so i might be missing something or communicating poorly. lotta discourse, im not an expert, but that's the vibes i get. hope this was helpful, im going to sleep now so if it wasn't i can't help
aw yiss!!!
Yes, that was my instant assumption too. It reads very similarly to "just woman-lite" arguments used against nonbinary people. It's sickeningly ironic in this case because Orange Book Bad references Bornstein and Serano, it's how I was introduced to Gender Outlaw and Whipping Girl, so it's not like the author is unaware? Which, I don't really desire to CANCEL IMOGEN BINNIE or whatever, the trouble is that Maria Griffiths kind of seems like a self insert in many ways, oops. It blows me away that a binary trans person could see genders outside the binary as being privileged, lol. The main reason I lean away from the theoretical "It's deliberate, it's about how Maria is an asshole!" argument is that for pretty much every other bit of blogosphere-quasi-lecturing-narration, Maria says very agreeable stuff and it seems like the reader is meant to agree so Idk.
Even if it were true that gq afab people were "just seen as women by society" that would not make them exempt from transphobia and discrimination anyway, yes!!!! You know what though, Nevada does have a lil passage about spaces that allow afab trans people but not amab:
Of course the text is sort of unrelentingly shitty about it, and also I have never heard the term which is probably a gen x thing, so that's a funny thing. Nevada is not a book that's kind to other trans people (JUST WAIT TILL YOU HEAR ABOUT ITS TAKES ON TRANS MEN!) and it's probably the aspect of it I hate the most. This is kinda like the primordial roots of the Bad Discourse that led to TME/TMA being adopted to start!
Sorry to hear that ur tired (sleep! sleep is good!) but I greatly appreciate the insight, you have connected a few dots in my brain I think. The more I look at this, the less there seems to be plausible deniability - or even if it's an intentional show of the protagonist being shitty, it's kind of going too far with it. Like, if the reader was not interested in hearing Maria's ridiculous stream of consciousness after this, I would not blame them in the slightest. Of course I have brainrot anyway, so but very good stuff.
book talk lets gooooo
I think this specific issue with Nevada is very emblematic of Imogen Binnie's brand of trans feminism (at least at the time, I can't remember if it's addressed in the second edition's afterword). The book is very white and very american, and Maria is shown to be relatively privileged. It's to the point where I don't fault anyone for not being able to read, enjoy, or relate to it for reasons past the blogpost narration.
I do kinda get that feeling of Maria being a self-insert in many ways which kinda taints the book a bit. However I also see Maria as a great example of "bad representation" in that while her character embodies some important parts of the trans experience, she's still a somewhat problematic and messy individual who exemplifies the parts of the trans experience that aren't spotlighted anywhere else. Whether it's intentional or not is definitely arguable and it definitely wasn't necessary to tell the story Imogen Binnie wanted to write, but I think that it could also just a product of the time it was written in.
ayooooo!!
Yes indeed, Nevada is a 0 intersectionalism text, which is deeply annoying since it's half a cultural touchstone. It's weird too because a few times Maria does point out stuff like say, getting the benefit of the doubt for being tall, white and attractive, but it's kind of nothing more than lipservice when shit like the above is being said too. I actually dunno how much I could recommend it anymore tbh...
She works the same job that Imogen Binnie did, the Camp Trans/Michigan Womyns Festival shit is definitely a Binnie thing 'cause iirc she met some Topside writers there irl, I have always considered her to be a mouthpiece. You are right though about the "bad representation" thing, and I think that's why Nevada has such staying power. (with me, at least, lmao) Maria sucks so bad and I love her, I never get tired of seeing her total all of her relationships and fuck everything up 'cause she's all messed up and sad the abrasiveness is part of the appeal, right?
I just kinda feel like the shit she says about genderqueer people and trans men are over the line, from "messy and problematic" to "divisive wrecker", I guess. I have seen it put people off once or twice, and I'm not convinced the book would not be improved if you just cut this bs about trans men "taking up space from trans women" and whatever.
Also it's weird because Nevada being big means that a lot of subsequently influenced trans fiction (Detransition Baby, Tell Me I'm Worthless, Manhunt) lean into the whole, gen-x-transfemme-who-browsed-fictionmania thing a lot, which I think is a bit quaint to most people now. It's definitely unique!
Actually unironically, if I'd known this was gonna go so well I would have aired my grievances with Nevada way sooner. This thread is great & everyone in it is lovely
my two cents i guess
as a tme trans person with some passing familiarity in this discourse i don’t feel particularly offended by these kinds of comments because I know that because of transmisogyny i have structural privilege over tma trans people. so a transfemme making a snarky comment about trans men or afab gq people, even if it dips into some unideal “invalidating gender” territory, isn’t nearly on the same level as the violent transmisogyny that gets perpetrated from those groups.
i’ve yet to read whipping girl which is on my reading list but i think serano discusses the divide between tme/tma trans people a bit too. ultimately i think it’s more important for us tme trans people to deal with transmisogyny in our communities first, because these kinds of comments are just a reaction to the dynamics of unrecognized privilege and violent exclusion in these transmisogynistic trans spaces. idk, just my thoughts though and i don’t want to invalidate your experience with nevada especially as I haven’t read it.
lfg!!!
Hi, I welcome any thoughts on this subject!
I'm glad at least to see that the quotes aren't that offensive to their targets, lol. I agree that it's nothing like the violent transmisogyny we experience, to me I guess it's about yet more divisive shit in the trans community, and also maybe that anger could be directed at dogshit cis people who commit the vast majority of that violent transmisogyny, instead of our comrades? It seems kind of bastardy to be bitterly invalidating people's genders instead? Down with cis? Just spitballing, Idk. I don't disagree with your comment overall, I appreciate the alternate view actually. Doesn't invalidate my experience :)
Man I still gotta read Whipping Girl, look at me being a genderlib and not reading theory!
more book more book
Oh! I just remembered!
These last two comments reminded me about a specific part of Whipping Girl that I think can elaborate a bit on the kind of thinking that informed Imogen Binnie and possibly led to these views.
In the last chapter of Whipping Girl, Serano touches on the topic of subversivism within the feminist movements of the time (90s to the early 10's).
There's quite a bit more than what I've put below, but I remember feeling conflicted when I first finished this chapter. Obviously today definitions have changed and the idea of political lesbians and genderqueer identities has shifted. I wanted to understand more after finishing the book in regards to this topic but the trans spaces I looked in were severely lacking in even basic transmisogyny discussion, so I had no hope of finding more on it.
Passages attached
Unending bookposting!
Oooooh look at this ✨ holy shit it's incredible... You know...
Now I think about it, Kieran and Maria kind of play this silly dichotomy out exactly, that must be intentional I suppose. But yes, I can see the whole-ass roots of Nevada's weirdo takes right here, I feel like I put on the shades from They Live this is fuckin awesome. Take a shot every time bad actors in the trans community recreate a gender binary. I know what "oppositional sexism" is! Kinda scuffed, again, claiming that non-binary gender identities are "on top", like even just today I've watched a nonbinary person get conversationally trodden upon by binary trans women, what horseshit.
I do actually find it kind of fascinating that Serano takes it back to queer unity though, that's very interesting. But uh
What does this mean, lol. Please do not tell me that cissies have been stealing our language behind my back??? I beg of you... "Gender libertarianism" is fucking hilarious though. But this whole thing is fascinating, dang. I have been enlightened, and it turns out the solution was just to read theory all along!!! It almost reads like Maria misread Whipping Girl now, lol
no gender-libs
So this is one of those parts that Serano intentionally left unchanged in later editions and Whipping Girl's age becomes apparent again. Serano herself, and from what I gather- queer activism of the time, made the distinction between Transgender and MTF identities (MTF being anyone born male that displays exceptional feminine traits, qualities, or behaviors but can identify as their assigned gender or otherwise. Transgender being anybody who displays exceptional cross-gender traits, qualities, or behaviors but can identify as their assigned gender or otherwise) and Transs*xuals. (Essentially what we acknowledge today as transgender, meaning someone who identifies with a gender that's incongruent with their assigned gender.)
I'll attach a passage at the end where she goes into it a bit as well.
In this passage Serano is saying that cissexual genderqueers (meaning cissexuals who identify as genderqueer due to politics or potentially people who do not feel within the gender binary but also do not identify with transs*xuals.) had a tendency to speak for trans individuals while not entirely being affected by the same societal systems and pressures.
I feel like I explained it badly but the messiness is a product of the age of the text I think.
also i'll just attach a link to the book to make it easier to look up if you need to.
passage
haha...
...okay that's really strange, huh. That's not a definition I've ever heard of in my life and it doesn't make any sense to me, not a word of it. So needlessly complicated and weird, thank fuck I was not on trans internet in 2007 because wtf.
I see, are there really "political genderqueers"? Huh, now I don't understand anything anymore
Is... the entire book steeped in ridiculous crusty terminology like this? A crisis, I wonder if I read Gender Outlaw wrong by not having this bizarro definition of "transgender" in mind. Maybe I am a lib.
spoiler
I imagine that there were at the time in the same way there were political lesbians. Their existence would connect back with subversivism and the desire to 'break the gender binary'.
Unfortunately it's definitely spread throughout the book, but Serano does well to front-load the definitions. She goes into it a bit in the 2nd editions preface.
http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2016/04/excerpt-from-whipping-girl-second.html
spoiler
I'll make sure to snag the second edition then, huh... these weirdo definitions are all new to me.
spoiler
There's actually a third edition now! It just came out last month and she included an extended afterword where she goes into the "basic biology" argument as well as the topic of "trans grooming."
spoiler
Oh awesome, very nice, an update for new kinds of suck!
I don't know any of those specific books but I feel the exact same way about talking about books with people. I want to have a non-banal conversation with someone. Anyone. About anything. But they're vanishingly rare, and usually just about personal experience not about any shared topic like a book or article we both read, because nobody fucking reads anything anymore :(
So relatable, part of the issue I think is that forums have died, so where can you go to discuss books? and the gamer chat app. Sucks hard. This extremely fun & enriching example you see is the result of me strivinf and suffering for like three years straight through dead-end conversations and clownish individuals.
If you haven't you can always just post about whatever in the megas, or as a post in a comm? It took a little work (lots of posting) but it's been great posting about say, Unjust Depths on here. I look forward to it every single day.
I haven't had a lot of luck posting here about specific books that aren't like, super common reads or current book club books, though when I do get a reply its usually good, if a bit short! I honestly just wish anyone IRL would engage with this stuff with me. I like people here but I really want to hear my friends' thoughts
Ah I see, I never even tried talking to people irl myself so I feel your pain there too.
I can talk to friends about the books I'm reading at least! but I can't even get them to read the same articles as me so we have no common material to work from and I have no sanity check for how I'm reading/interpreting the text :/
technology delenda est. I used to be the biggest reader I knew when I was a kid, now I'm still one of the biggest but only because everyone else doesn't have the attention span to read 1 (one) book and I can sometimes burn through one or two when I'm in the right headspace
Yeah that's super fucking annoying, it sucks. One of the reasons I'm so neurotic about weirdbooks is that I can ONLY work from my own frame of reference. I have no way to sanity check myself, or even just to hear alternate views or whatever to expand my understanding. As a result, my takes on certain novels are extremely myopic, like Nevada!! I relish getting to talk with other people who have read the thing ❤
I never got why it's like that, I have a lot of computers and whatever and I still read a fair bit, because words on a page are cool. I fuckin love when readable text is presented in paragraphs!
Amen to that
I am finally reading through This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong and its absolutely fascinating and amazingly well written. If anything it's better at nearly 100 years old than I imagine it was in the 30s
Ooh, aged like wine? What makes you say so?
its really cool to hear an unabashedly pro-soviet perspective from the most demonized period in the USSR's history (under Stalin). She's so charismatic, and direct experiences of how the soviet economic and political organizing worked are so fascinating. I haven't finished it yet but every little tidbit of how people took to it and ran with it is so inspiring, and I think the later chapters will cover more of how changing society subsequently changed people! I read some from the scuffed PDF copy a while back, but now I found a physical copy to borrow which I am immensely lucky for!
Its a great primer on communism tbh, as long as you can get over the positive mentions of stalin (makes it a tougher rec for libs but super eye opening for anyone else who isn't deeply well read about the ussr, IMO)
This sounds like a phenomenal read, I was having a moment about China's policies around children and religion so I'm very in the mood to get hyped about AES countries I think. Thanks for the elaboration :)
I am ready to hear good things about Uncle Joe, it is April 10th and he did in fact save the world from fascism.