#don’t you dare speak up about them if you have the inability to criticise her acknowledge her wrongdoings

[radicalfem-kat]

This is a question I get asked a lot and, to be honest, it’s one of the hardest to answer. Firstly, being asked to second guess someone else’s motivation is problematic. I can only guess what they’re thinking based on their behaviour, I can’t know. Secondly, I don’t think it has a simple answer, like most things in life. Still, it bears discussion, so I’m going to try to explore the phenomenon.

Before we begin, a quick history lesson.

Trans people claiming to have some sort of DSD/intersex status is not a new phenomenon. I’m going to illustrate his with the story of Agnes Torres, probably one of the most well documented cases ever.

In 1962, 20-year-old Agnes was referred to University of California Medical Center at Los Angeles because of “progressive feminization” since the age of 12. Agnes is described in science papers as presenting with “feminine body contours and hair pattern and large, well-developed breasts coexisting with the normal external genitalia of a male.” Medical history indicated that Agnes had been a typically presenting, healthy male at birth and had remained so pre-puberty. Then, during puberty, a “progressive deepening of the voice, phallic enlargement, development of a feminine pubic hair pattern and progressive breast enlargement” had occurred. Agnes also expressed a desire to have been a woman since childhood and to have had an interest in “girls’ toys”.

Agnes’ case baffled doctors. Numerous tests were carried out. None provided any conclusive answers for her appearance.  She was found to have an excess of oestrogen, which explained the feminised development, but doctors could not explain why this had happened. She was eventually diagnosed with a rare form of ‘male pseudohermaphroditism with feminizing testis’, an outdated term used back then for Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS).

Agnes wanted sex reassignment surgery (SRS) to align her genitalia with the rest of her appearance. Doctors agreed, due to Agnes’ hyper-feminised appearance and traits (Agnes spoke at length in psychological interviews about studying how women behaved and taking instruction form her boyfriend, Bill, on how to pass as a woman), that Agnes was “entitled” to a vagina and so SRS was performed.

Agnes stayed in touch with the doctors who had treated her and written about the case. She dropped a bombshell though when, 5 years later, she revealed she had been self-medicating with oestrogen tablets, stolen from their mother, since the age of 12. This was the cause of Agnes’ feminisation, not a mysterious intersex condition.

It would seem Agnes was uncomfortable with her own sexuality and gender non-conforming behaviour. It’s impossible to think that 12-year-old Agnes really understood the consequences of taking female hormones. In fact, doctors described Agnes’ belief that she may become a woman as sort of magical thinking. It may be that she believed the medication would help that process. She certainly seemed to have had no thought of the need for surgical alteration until later in life.

Much has been written about the case since, exploring the reasons that Agnes may have chosen to lie to doctors, but also why they were so taken in. The main theory seems to be that doctors and Agnes felt she needed some “true claim” to womanhood to be eligible for SRS and to explain her feminine appearance and behaviour. Constructing an intersex narrative positioned Agnes as the victim of a mistake by nature that could be fixed by man. This clearly appealed to the doctors who could make a name for themselves by being the ones treating her and reporting on the case. Agnes herself said later in life she had co-operated with whatever the doctors said in the hope that this would mean surgery was performed as quickly as possible.

Keep reading

It’s interesting to note that many of Agnes’ comments have since been criticised as being homophobic and transphobic. She referred to trans and homosexual people as “abnormal” and explicitly did not want to be classed with “them”. Agnes is not the only recorded case where a belief in being born intersex among transsexuals has been found to be caused by internalised transphobia. This is a common theme. As a side note, arguably, the portrayal of intersex in this case is also interphobic in viewing it as a mistake that needs to be fixed.

I’ve often considered this may be a reason for the claims of intersex status by many of the trans activists I have spoken to. In fact, it is a motivation that has been acknowledged by trans activists. It seems many feel that being intersex legitimises their access to procedures such as SRS and hormone treatments or their claims of feeling an incongruence with their sex. This is not a popular view in intersex activism circles, who tend to be against unnecessary medical interventions, particularly for children. It is, however, something intersex orgs have tackled before in the shape of “intersex brains” theory (I will blog about this one day, but in the meantime, you can hear some of my thoughts about it here).

This argument, that being intersex will make access to medical procedures easier, isn’t without other contradictory problems though. In the UK, anecdotal evidence suggests that access to cosmetic procedures for adults can be easier to access with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, rather than a diagnosis of a DSD. It would perhaps then be better to suggest that some claims are due to a perceived ease of access to medical procedures, rather than this being reality.

Another hypothesis for why trans people may claim to be intersex is “individuals may also be attracted to the novelty and perceived freakishness of being “intersex.” In some cases, this may take the form of, or be akin to, a sexual paraphilia”. This may not be as far fetched as it seems. Certainly, there are boards on trans peer support sites, such as Susan’s Place, which discuss the fetishization of “hermaphrodites”. Even in literature written by respected academics, such as this from Anne Fausto-Sterling (the woman behind the 1.7% stat) it’s clear to see the idea of intersex people being reduced to a fantasy and fetishized.

“Perhaps we will come to view such children as especially blessed or lucky. It is not so far-fetched to think that some can become the most desirable of all possible mates, able to pleasure their partners in a variety of ways.”

I must confess, in terms of most disturbing quotes ever, Fausto-Sterling is a strong contender there. Worrying views about children as sexual objects aside, I notice no thought is given to the intersex person themselves receiving any pleasure from sexual intercourse. They are merely positioned as the one who exists to please others.

In terms of modern, online intersex appropriation, it’s easy to see why this prevails. There are many links to the anime community in some trans circles. Hentai, the pornographic branch of anime, has a whole genre named ‘Futanari’. Futanari is the Japanese word for hermaphroditism, although it can also be used more broadly to mean androgyny. In hentai, however, it specifically describes characters with both primary sex characteristics, nowadays referring almost exclusively to characters who have an overall feminine body, but both female and male genitalia.

As I have written before, it is not actually possible for a person to have both sets of genitalia. In fact, as in the Yaniv case, it is often factors like this that make it obvious that the claim of being intersex is fictitious.  Many trans activists will make other such implausible claims, such as contradictory, multiple diagnoses, the existence of both sets of genitalia and/or gonads and even in extreme cases tales of self-impregnation.

In the case of Yaniv, there is one other factor that’s worth considering.

Trans activist Tracie O’Keefe wrote an article in 2010 encouraging trans people to identify as intersex as a way to “mess with the system”. O’Keefe makes it clear that the aim is to use intersex as a political label and a tool to confuse authorities by suggesting that binary classifications of male and female don’t work. This certainly seems to be the aim of the fabled sex spectrum. O’Keefe posits that this will make it easier for trans activists to push for legislative changes that give them access to the things they demand, such as changes in documentation along with the destruction of any evidence of former identities. Although not an administrative matter, it’s clear to see this at work in the Yaniv case, where spurious claims about “intersex genitalia” are accepted almost without question.

I’m going to wrap this up soon, but I think we also need to acknowledge why this is such an issue for the intersex/DSD community. Firstly, intersex discussion groups can quickly become dominated by trans activists claiming intersex status and wanting validation for this. This over-representation means that often it is these stories that make it into the mainstream media, with some trans activists becoming actual spokespeople for the intersex community, despite not having the experience or even an interest in the issues facing those with DSDs. This leads to the spreading of misinformation which unfortunately, due to its proliferation, can end up influencing intersex protocols. As it can be easy for trans activists to claim an invasion of privacy when asked to prove their credentials to speak on behalf of intersex people, it is difficult to challenge these claims. This, in turn, promotes the unhelpful and inaccurate ideas held by the pretending individual, or poseur, while intersex people who dare to contradict the narrative become further marginalised.

Whatever the many and varied reasons trans activists lay claim to intersex status, be it an inability to accept themselves for who they are, for perceived status or access to medical interventions, fetishistic curiosity, or just to create political confusion for the advancement of their agenda, it is not a claim that helps either group, nor is it a new phenomenon. Trans people need to be able to accept themselves and understand who they are without this conflation. Encouraging the mistaken belief that they are somehow intersex does nothing to help with this, all it does is shutdown discussions and muddy the waters. Intersex people deserve accurate information about their differences, not only to be available to them but also to fight social stigmas surrounding DSDs. And finally, both groups deserve their own voices and to talk about their own needs and reality without being political pawns in someone else’s game or sexual fantasy.

[wheelswithinreels]

‘The uncanny valley, at the end of the day, is the gap between seeing and believing.’ Bruce Carter, at the Animal Logic animation studio in Sydney.

We all hate politicians. But why? Isn't that weird? Throughout history, we haven't always hated our leaders. So why do our politicians, these days, seem so alien, so strange, so... uncanny?

...Maybe an obscure Japanese roboticist's theory holds the answer. A video essay. Part one of two!

*

Ah, politics. (Cue ~80% of my readers switching off in disgust.) Actually, since right now I don't have any readers, that's fine, you can't divide by zero. Unless you're Ted Chiang, in which case they'll probably seize your book with glee, hose you with money and make a movie about it.

...Anyway. Politics.

This one I wrestled with for a bit; not least because I'm not all that comfortable with writing a piece of genuinely venomous criticism. You'll notice as we go that I tend to review things I love, and that when I do criticise, it's with the intention of making something awesome even better. I just enjoy what I'm doing more that way.

And it's not just because I'm a spineless jellyfish (although I am, wibble) - it's because on the whole, there ain't no accounting for taste and one man's trash is another man's treasure, etcetera. (Incidentally, that last one - awful way to tell your kid he's adopted.) But, yes, to each his own, say I, and all the more for me - if I don't like something and you do, that's totally cool, you do your thing and I'll do mine. It's all just opinions in the end.

And to be honest, I reckon there's very little to be gained by hurling bags of shit at things/people/art you don't like, on the whole; yes, it might be funny, yes, it might feel cathartic, but if the target of your shit volley ever actually reads it, it's more likely to upset them quite badly than anything else. Which, well, probably outbalances those flickers of amusement and the momentary release you get from ripping seven shades of shit out of them.

I dunno. I don't mean to get on my high horse, and I look rubbish up there anyway, but... I'm with Michael Keaton in Birdman, on the whole, when he rails against hatchet jobs. 'You write a couple of paragraphs and you know what? None of this cost you fuckin' anything!' Art's hard. Compassion's easy. (Most of the time.) As someone's old Welsh grandmother is no doubt still muttering, 'if you can't say anything nice, SHUT THE FUCK UP, ARSEHOLE.'

...You'll see this come up a couple of times in upcoming videos, I reckon. Hey, it's an interesting subject. And I certainly haven't always practiced what I preach... I probably laughed harder and longer at das-sporking's savage Twilight recap than anything else in 2009. Still. (The infamous Charlie Brooker wrote an excellent and thought-provoking piece about exactly this in 2010, if you're interested...)

*

So, why break my own rule? Well, it comes down to this, I reckon.

Bad art doesn't hurt anybody. (Define 'bad', anyway.) From a formal literary perspective, my 13-year-old fanfiction might well have been an enormous steaming heap - but at the time, it helped me hone my craft immeasurably, put me in touch with a small but close-knit group of sweet, supportive readers who reviewed each other and built up each other's confidence, and helped me grow up.

Put it this way: if you'd left me a bad review at age 13, I can guarantee I wasn't mature enough to handle it. (Hey, people saying my shit stinks still hurts.) All you'd have accomplished would be to upset a kid, and probably drive them off the internet for a few months. It's hard to see how that's a net positive.

But while bad art, generally speaking, doesn't hurt anyone, bad politics does. More specifically, bad politicians do. In all sorts of ways - from dementia taxes, to food banks, to the more insidious problem of receding trust in our democracy - from Nick Clegg's continued insistence that he shouldn't have to apologise for betraying every student who voted for him (ahem), to Theresa May's cowardice concerning debates, to her apparent inability to answer any question, at all, like a human being.

And when we see shit like this going down, we should start getting annoyed. We should stand at the back and heckle. We should make our arguments heard. Otherwise more bad things will happen to more good people.

So the reason I've made an exception for Theresa May - and every other politician who's traded in their authenticity for a slicked-back PR guru - is that, well, she's a politician. More than that - she is, for now at least, the leader of my country. And yet she pulls stunts like these, in broad daylight...

Plymouth is feeling the effects of military cuts. Will she guarantee to protect the city from further pain? "I'm very clear that Plymouth has a proud record of connection with the armed forces."

How will your Brexit plan make Plymouth better off? "I think there is a better future ahead for Plymouth and for the whole of the UK."

Will you promise to sort out our transport links? "I'm very clear that connectivity is hugely important for Plymouth and the South West generally."

- Sam Blackledge, The Plymouth Herald

I go on about this kind of shit at quite some length in the video, so I won't repeat myself too much, but... seriously? Is this how stupid you think we are? Whichever parasitical sycophant convinced Theresa May that the electorate will swallow this kind of gubbins needs Domestos-ing, stat. The Great British public rather dislike being patronised. As they recently proved.

...So, even though I felt uncomfortable titling the video 'Why You Hate Theresa May,' and I still feel uncomfortable having a video on my channel with a title like that, I think it's justified. Hey, put it this way: if I was a politician who was honestly trying to do some good for my country, and a video popped up titled 'Why People Fucking Hate You', I'd be upset, sure - but I'd want to watch it. Just to see whether they actually had a point. Just in case I'd fucked something up badly. I'd want to see.

The video isn't really about hate. I don't want people to hate their prime minister, and if she ever changes, you bet I'll make a video expressing my delight and appreciation. I just wish she'd understand why, right now, they're justified in doing so.

*

Anyway, this video was 90% finished a month or so ago, in fact; then I sort of moved countries, and forgot about it, until the UK election campaign brought it squarely back into focus. (That's why poor old Ed Miliband comes in for the brunt of the bollocking in this first part; Theresa May hadn't really got going with 'strong-and-stable' yet.) But I was seized with a sudden urge to dig it out and finish it because, well, it seemed so relevant to why she'd lost.

...Also, I'm still a baby channel and, well, I'm as keen to capitalise on current events as the next guy. So, sheer good luck and timing that I had a video almost done.

*

And now for something completely different: I just wanted to address the fact that most/all of you probably saw this video pop up first as an ad. Yep, a paid one. Via Google AdWords. I'm officially a heartless, soulless business.

Or not, since I'm also broke as shit, and my AdWords campaign is presently set to run for TWO WHOLE DAYS at a cost of roundabout £15. Yeah. I do slightly sadden myself sometimes.

I did have some severe doubts about advertising on YouTube... for one thing, everyone hates adverts. How dare I waste people's time? Well, here's how I justified it to myself:

Like I said, baby channel. Tiny. Insignificant. When 300 hours are uploaded to YouTube every minute, frankly, I'm screwed if I can't get the word out somehow. At least at the start.

You can skip my ads, 'cos I'm way too poor for the mandatory 30-second ones, har har. (Also, I'd never make an ad unskippable. Fuck that shit.)

I can count the number of ads I've actually enjoyed and/or watched to the end on one hand, but... there have been a few of them. Some showing me videos I might never otherwise have seen. If my crappy little ad campaign nets me one person who genuinely enjoys my stuff, and watches it, and thinks it improved their day, well... it'll be money well spent.

<sanctimonious-soapboxery>When you think about it, it's actually my money that's helping out those poor creators who do rely on monetisation, so good for them, I say. Poor sods.</sanctimonious-soapboxery>

Having said all that... I'd rather you watched the AVPM video, frankly. It's way more representative of what this channel's going to be about. But hey, this is something I felt strongly enough about to pour hours of research (read: watching politicians lie on YouTube) into. If that's not enough to make you pity me, well... may God have mercy on your twisted little walnut of a soul.

And on that note...

x