Guardian interview with Janet Mock

[hackmum]

This is what Simon Hattenstone says about transwoman Janet Mock:

"Mock is gorgeous – tall, curvy, with brown, almond-shaped eyes, a perfect smile and cheek-bones so high you could hoist a flag on them."

I was surprised. The Guardian is usually careful not to write about women's appearance in a way that objectifies them.

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/15/janet-mock-id-never-seen-a-young-trans-woman-who-was-thriving-in-the-world-i-was-looking-for-that

This is what she actually says:

These women taught me that nothing was wrong with me or my body and that if I wanted they would show me the way, and it was this underground railroad of resources created by low-income, marginalized women, that enabled me when I was 16 to jump in a car with my first regular and choose a pathway to my survival and liberation

And on the same page she discusses the risks of prostitution and talks about wanting to ensure that there are 'more appealing' alternatives available to young trans people.

Yeah, should you report the post with the quote? It isn't what she said at all and that isn't fair.

Janet Mock also said:
When you’re 16 years old, dreaming of being yourself and you come from a family that is already struggling economically (not to mention dealing with accepting your identity) and you’re faced with the high cost of gender affirmative healthcare, the hurdles are high and overwhelming, and sex work becomes the most appealing, viable, efficient option. At least it was for me. Multilayered systemic oppressions are stacked up against trans women from low-income and/or communities of color so the sex trade becomes a road well traveled, helping trans women alleviate financial woes while also making many of us feel desired as women (through an objectifying male gaze), women who are taught that we are undesirable and illegitimate .

She is writing powerfully about her own experiences.

Here we are shouting from the rooftops about the importance of free speech and then people twist someone's words in this way. It's unacceptable.

Although I completely agree with you in this case hipster

Mumsnet is bloody full of it

I agree
wtglwgh
however, I think there is a problem using 'underground railroad' to describe TIM prostitutes facilitating trans idnetifying boys into prostitution. The underground railroad took people to safety.

Here we are shouting from the rooftops about the importance of free speech and then people twist someone's words in this way. It's unacceptable.

I just came back to this thread to say something similar. I've got work to do but it was nagging at the back of my mind. It isn't right to take words out of context and make accusations and it doesn't really fit in with 'when they go low we go high'.

It is the blog which is at fault here for interpreting her words in a certain way.

hattenstone's 'boobily' prose is irreclaimable however

Exactly Tallulah! Those comments take away from the issue at hand - "curvy" indeed.

yes, the boobily description (regardless of how good Janet looks) is irredeemable.

upstart crow's comment needs to be removed straight away.

In fact frankly this whole thread needs to go. That second post is beyond the pale.

xpost upstart. thanks

I've just read both the original article and the gendertrender blog, and agree that gendertrender have sensationalized and taken JM's comments somewhat out of context. That's not to say that I find JM's comments acceptable. It's unsettling to read about how affirming and positive they found teenage sexwork, but I can understand on a personal level how JM has recast what must have been an extremely difficult and painful period of their life into something more triumphant.

It's good to have some clarification. Thanks to those who hunted the correct quotes down.

I've asked for my post to be removed too, I should have read Mock's own article before commenting.

"gendertrender have sensationalized and taken JM's comments somewhat out of context"

agree, and on the most serious possible subject. it's not on.

irrespective of whether we think transgender people are men or women or whatever they are first and foremost people and should not have gendertrender throwing this kind of stuff at them.

@ErrolTheDragon Regardless of who he was writing about, isn't that description just like those examples of bad male writing which were parodied recently?

That is the thing I thought of too!

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/women-describing-themselves-the-way-a-male-author-writer-would-twitter_us_5ac524cae4b09ef3b243163f

Journalists often write about actresses like that. Some actresses have pointed out how irritating it is. The men writing the articles don't like that very much.

I remember one interview with Gillian Anderson back in the day where the writer went on and on about her looks, including a rather creepy passage about how tiny and fragile her wrist looked as she poured from a teapot.

At which point I was just going, WTF does this have to do with The X Files?

Angry: "Journalists often write about actresses like that."

They do, but not usually in the Guardian. The Guardian tends to be very sensitive to the idea that you shouldn't objectify women by describing how attractive they are. Certainly you wouldn't see an actress (or "actor" as the Guardian has it) described as "curvy".

I was interested in why Hattenstone chose to use that kind of language about a transwoman, when he almost certainly wouldn't use it about other women. What does it tell us about the way the paper sees transwomen? When did you last see a transwoman interviewed in the Guardian who was ordinary-looking, wearing jeans, say, and no make-up?

Exceptional self policing there, everyone!

Bet twitter won't comment on that, though.

I wonder how on earth the Janet was able to be captain of the school volleyball team Damn biology again

She does seem to be glamourizing prostitution though... fine if that's her opinion of course. It's just a bit naive.