Recommend me a book!

[RibenaBerry]

Right, reading these boards recently has given me a bit of a kick up the arse on my feminist principles. I've done a bit of 'light' reading in the area (think The Beauty Myth as a teenager) but think I need something a bit more serious without being so weighty I never pick it up. I'd rather have something published in, say, the last 15 years than any of the 'classics'.

Any ideas?

"ftm pay lip service to the idea that its possible to change sex..."-
Dittony-im not understanding what youre meaning by this-could you explain please?
when i said that its not as simple as being born male or female-i meant that i feel that i believe that you can be born male or female or trans and within this-i feel like theres others on this spectrum of people aswell!

well-youll have to excuse me as im not very good with understanding words sometimes-
i used the word spectrum as to me-spectrum means"across the board"-
so-as i feel that someone can be born not just either male or female ect-..........

[when i say......]
oh i see-thankyou for explaining this Dittony!
actually-i can see what youre saying but i dont agree as-
although i can youre point-i dont think that a transperson would go down the path they do because of "women are doing it too"syndrome!
if someone was[say]ftm-its because they felt like they wasnt a woman-not because of any other reason!

sparky, re spectrums, don't doubt yourself as you are right. See Joan Roughgarden for more.

Much of this argument has been essentialist, which is the enemy of feminism, and has reminded me of essentialist views on race, and I found this today which nicely explains this:

"More recent work in genetics is finally laying to rest the notion that race is a biological reality (Genetic Structure of Human Populations, Science 12.20.02) and advances in feminism, queer theory, and gender studies are exposing the fallacy of our binary system of sex that still considers these categories as ?natural? (Sexing the Body, Fausto-Sterling 2000). Moreover, there is a growing body of research that is illuminating the geneology of both concepts and showing that sex and race, rather than being natural and inevitable are socio-political conceptual constructions deployed for the purpose of subjugating women and people of color.

Furthermore, these terms must necessarily be defined in terms of each other, not in comparison or as conceptual analogies. As Siobhan Somerville (1997) illustrates, sex and race have historically been conceptualized in tandem in a wide range of discourses. For example, Somerville notes that ?One of the most consistent medical characterizations of the anatomy of both African-American women and lesbians was the myth of an unusually large clitoris.? Similarly, races have often been gendered such that Caucasian industrialized groups represent masculinity and Oriental races are characterized as feminine.

Consequently, as we continue to tackle issues of social injustice with regard to women and people of color we must be aware of the legacy of combined oppression. We must understand how the nuances of sexualized and racialized discourses and representations impact our lives today. Why is the hyper-sexual, black buck image being continually reinvented and reproduced? Why, on the other extreme, are other non-white men feminized (whatever that is)? Why are black women still characterized as being less than feminine (whatever that means)? Why is there a pervasive sexualization and emotionalization of mixed-raced people (women in particular)?

Perhaps when we truly understand the hegemonic legacy of the construction of sex and race we will be better able to confront oppression and social injustice. And no longer will it be big news to have a black or female president.

Read more at Suite101: Sex and Race: Binary Concepts, Double Oppression racism.suite101.com/article.cfm/sex_and_race#ixzz0tNKEUkjc

Read more at Suite101: Sex and Race: Binary Concepts, Double Oppression racism.suite101.com/article.cfm/sex_and_race#ixzz0tNK3bItW

yes-this would be the idea if you didnt understand transsexualism[ect]-
but-as i said-i feel that theres more to it than this!
if a male fitted fully into this category-i agree-he would be a male!
but sometimes-yes-someone can be born looking like theyre fitting into this catergory-but theyre in fact not-hence they being transsexual[ect]-its not always about what youve got inbetween youre legs ect!
ok-you get a male who fits into this category-tell him he s a female-he will tell you to "go away"!!-why-its because he knows he male!
on the other hand-get a transwoman would agree as-well-she is!

"That is definitely where we differ. Male and female are actually quite clear (with a few intersex exceptions). If they weren't we wouldn't be able to reproduce the human race. That's what sex is after all, the means of reproduction for the species."

How horribly homophobic. Shame.

Great article in the Telegraph today:

So, I had a sex change
www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/7867780/So-I-had-a-sex-change.html

The times, they are a'changing. The conservative Telegraph is able to accept trans people and write about them positively, but some radical feminists still feel sure in their dinosaur transphobic essentialist dogma. Pathetic really.

Interesting article - partic the fact that Kate recognises that her male upbringing has been a huge benefit in business.....

After two weeks and 763 comments you still refuse to even begin to understand transsexualism dittany. That is why you are repeatedly called out on your bigotry.

dittany- I need to ask you a question as I feel as if I have slipped into a parallel universe on another thread.

How do you feel about the phrase 'My Filipino lady'?

I just need you to tell me I'm not going mad...

Apologies.

"you dont have to be heterosexual to reproduce you know"-
yes-and in a way-this is what ive been trying to say!
obviously-two women or two men together cant produce a child-theres ways and means for this-
so therefore actually-
the sexual organs arent used to produce-[always]
so we cant always go with whats inbetween our legs!
ok-say two women are together and decide to have a child-they get this child and they decide that the one that didnt produce the child was the mum-would this make her less of a mum because she felt like the mum and didnt produce the child?

I am thinking that there can be no real exchange if ideas where one group is so bent on their own point of view that they use insults and threats to silence dissent

this thread is just about trolled out I reckon

shame, really, I think there were real opportunities for everyone to share experiences and learn something

difficult though when people are being accused of hate crimes, bigotry and having souls full of bile

Dittany I have made that point myself a few times now, and it has been ignored

well, once, someone said that race isn't a social construct -rofl and lol at that

Nope, a poster on the 'houseboy' AIBU thread referring to her domestic helper

I am slack jawed in horror at some of the attitudes on there, but that phrase in particular stood out and I needed a voice of reason before I go back in there.

Thanks for providing it

Once more unto the breach....

Sorry again for hijack

I too thought it was a joke...

I want to ask a question about biological reproduction and its relation to anatomical sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

Many trans people become parents before surgery. They become parents while they are still in the gender they want to leave at all costs. When a trans woman wants to procreate, does she use her fully-functioning male sexual anatomy, thinking I shall just pretend temporarily to be the male for the purposes of the sex act? For a trans woman, if they do have to force themselves to temporarily think of themselves as male, how does that fit in with feeling like a woman? I am not saying it does or doesn't, I'm just asking a question!

If I've asked a question that will get me accused of e.g. bigotry, then what is the point of discussing any of this?