#whats 22nd century canada like for trans people

[rearranging-deck-chairs]

i was joking, mostly, about the zephyr alexis navine thats such a trans name thing, but i am interested in the dysphoria aspect of bodyswapping which i feel like is almost never acknowledged in anything where bodyswapping happens. bc like, not even necessarily gender-related, getting suddenly put into another body would be distressing for a lot of people. and the nevers is the first thing ive ever seen that acknowledges that. "why are my hands so tiny", "this doughy frame", and the most visceral "this body that i cant fit into"

[a-room-of-my-own]

Authenticity & empathy: Meghan Murphy

Meghan Murphy is a freelance writer and journalist. She has been podcasting and writing about feminism since 2010, is the founder and editor Feminist Current, Canada’s leading feminist website and has published work in numerous national and international publications.

This is the text of the speech she gave at the 22nd meeting of Woman’s Place UK.

I’ve been thinking a lot about authenticity lately. We’re currently living in a culture wherein authenticity has been traded in for fakery. We support and reward virtue signalling and punish those who are real, those who tell the truth, those with integrity, those who insist on making political arguments based on critical thinking and what is right, rational, and ethical, instead of based on what is politically correct or popular.

I have a rather overzealous commitment to authenticity, which I think has played a sizable role in my insistence on pushing back against gender identity ideology and legislation. I know I have friends, or acquaintances, or friends of friends, or random internet followers with self righteous opinions who think maybe I should just back off of this. Or who claim I’m being ‘mean’ or unempathetic, because I continue to operate in reality rather than the fantasy land we’re told is the new normal, wherein black is white, up is down, and men are women.

But I see no empathy for women and girls on the part of trans activists, that is to say, those pushing gender identity ideology and legislation. What I see is bullying, threats, ostracization, and a misogynist backlash against the feminist movement and much of the work it’s accomplished over years.

I see no empathy for women who are now being forced to compete against male athletes in sport, essentially rendering women’s sport nonexistant, as they can no longer compete on fair ground, if forced to compete against men. I see no empathy for the female athletes speaking out against this reprehensible trend — instead they’re being smeared and threatened. I see no empathy for the lesbians being bullied right out of their own events and communities, as the LGBTQxyz+++ whatever movement does nothing to support them, and in fact seems instead to support the men pushing them around and hurling verbal abuse at them, simply for asserting that lesbians are females who are attracted to other females, not heterosexual men interested in playing around with lipstick.

We held an event in Vancouver earlier this month, addressing the issue of gender identity and kids, and our venue — the Croatian Cultural Centre — received so many threats they had to file a police report, hire their own security, and bring in the Vancouver Police Department to keep protesters off the property. They, for once, didn’t blame us — women, feminists — for the threats of violence sent their way, and rather asked, with disbelief, how it was us the trans activists were accusing of being ‘hateful’, while simultaneously verbally abusing and threatening violence against the venue’s staff.

Somewhere between 150 and 200 protesters showed up, and stood outside with signs saying things like, “Support trans youth”, “Love and Solidarity”, “Love trans kids”, “be careful who you hate, it might be someone you love” and “love wins.”

All this branding around “love” has been incredibly successful, of course. We — women fighting for women’s rights, people fighting for the truth, those of us who insist on acknowledging that biology is real, that females and males are real things, and that, no, there is no such thing as a “female penis” —have been painted as hateful, intolerant, and bigoted, despite the fact that we are the only ones engaging (or trying to engage in) respectful, civil, rational debate and discussion, and being shut down over and over again.

Despite the fact that WE are the ones concerned about male violence against women and how gender identity ideology and legislation will hurt women, as well as kids, who are now being sent down a path towards hormones and surgery that will destroy their bodies permanently, simply because they don’t conform to sexist gender stereotypes, it is trans activists who have positioned themselves as caring and politically correct, and us as cruel and intolerant.

As I was leaving the venue after that event, the stragglers screamed at me that I had blood on my hands. Which of course I do not, and which, of course, is incredibly ironic considering how many times I’ve been told I should be murdered on account of my belief that you can’t change sex, and that it is not possible to be ‘born in the wrong body.’

I see no empathy in trans activism for the girls who will lose scholarships and opportunities to boys who can easily beat them in athletic competitions.

I see no empathy for women and girls who don’t feel comfortable with naked men in their change rooms at the pool. I see no empathy for youth being put on hormones that will have a lasting impact on them, including permanent sterilization, all to accommodate adults who don’t want to see trans ideology questioned under any circumstances.

I see no empathy for the women and their children who will have nowhere to turn if their local transition house is defunded on account of a women-only policy.

I see no empathy for Kristi Hanna, a Toronto woman and survivor of sexual assault, who had leave her room at Palmerston house, a shelter for recovering addicts, because she was made to share a room with a man, and did not feel safe.

I see no empathy for the 14 female estheticians who were asked to give a male a brazilian bikini wax, then dragged to court when they declined, saying they only offered the service to women.

I see no empathy for the girls allegedly predated on by this man, who is being protected by our very liberal, very progressive society that’s choosing to put male feelings and desires above all else, under the guise of ‘inclusion’, and thanks to trans activism.

Women and girls are being told they may not have boundaries. That they may not say ‘no’ to men. And this is what we are told it means to ‘choose love’. This is what we are being told is ‘feminism’.

Trans activism says women may not define their own bodies as female. That we may not have our own rights, services, and spaces, that ‘exclude’ men. It says gender stereotypes are real and innate, but the female body is a social construction. It says that ‘woman’ is based only on adherence to or an affinity towards femininity, something feminism has fought against for years.

So much of what women fought for over the past century is being rolled back, and progressives are insisting we all shut up and take it, because it’s ‘nice’, and of course, women must always be ‘nice’, even if it means putting our lives, autonomy, safety, opinions, and rights aside.

NOTHING about the trans movement is progressive and nothing about it is feminist.

I brought up authenticity earlier on, partly because I am sick to death of this social media based culture wherein we put forth personas we believe our audience will like, modeling perfect faces, lives, and thoughts, which I find incredibly boring and depressing, but also because I see this devaluing of authenticity as having an incredibly destructive impact on political discourse, and certainly it’s manifested itself powerfully in the trans movement.

I don’t believe that, aside from a few exceptionally delusional or troubled people, a majority of the population believes it’s possible to change sex. I don’t believe that all these so called progressives look at a man we call him ‘she’, and believe he is literally a woman. I don’t believe all these people claiming ‘love wins’ and insisting women be more ‘empathetic’ as they give up all their rights and spaces, while these activists spout vile, hateful insults and threats at us, are really very loving at all.

I think people are not telling the truth. I think they are repeating mantras and going along with ideas and policies in order to appease their Facebook friends. I think they value social status a lot, and are willing to give up ethics and truth in order to be liked. And I think it’s pathetic. I think that these people are throwing women under the bus and even selling themselves out in the process, knowing that they’re spouting lies for virtual cookies and using us all to fake politics.

And I refuse to be used as some kind of stepping stool for empty headed, cowardly hipsters — these extremely privileged people who have fetishized oppression, but have no idea what marginalized groups actually face and deal with on a daily basis, because certainly it’s not ‘misgendering’ that is keeping people poor and vulnerable — who can’t be bothered to read, listen, or think before announcing, boldly, that women with actual politics, who actually understand history, and who are bold enough to take a stand against actual bigotry and oppression should be silenced, punched, or even killed.

The wrong side of history is an embarrassing place to be.

But unfortunately I worry that, by the time these people realize how much damage they’ve caused by going along with such a destructive trend, it will be too late. What does give me hope is all of you. This massive and growing movement of people standing up and saying ‘no’, we won’t take this silently and sitting down. This groundswell of people insisting on telling the truth, despite the fact that we lose friends, jobs, social status, and sometimes safety, for doing so.

And the more we keep doing it, the more will join us.

Meghan Murphy

20th May 2019

[blamingslaveryon]

Slavery: Who is to Blame?

At a recent social event I got the opportunity to chat with a teenager who is taking a US history class. As an ancient historian whose research over the last ten years has mostly focused on slavery, I decided to ask her what she had learned about the topic. Knowing that little effort is made to fit it into the big picture, that is, into the global history of slavery, I shouldn’t have been too surprised to hear her say that the British were unfamiliar with slavery until the time of the American colonies (untrue), that slavery was invented in the 17th century (also untrue), and that there had never been slaves in North America (also untrue; I will get back to all of this later in my blog). I felt it was my duty to enlighten the girl, so I spent some time lecturing her before finally letting her go back to being a teenager and gluing her eyes and fingers to her smartphone. The very next day I got my hands on a high school textbook and read, among other things, that before the trans-Atlantic slave-trade began, Africans practiced slavery but it was a “mild” kind, that it was more like European feudalism, and that all slaves were treated like “family.” I was also able to confirm the source of most of the teenager’s misinformation. All this inspired me to write a blog on the history of the institution of slavery which, although no longer legal in most parts of the modern world, is still practiced. As always, it follows the law of supply and demand. And although exact statistics are hard to come by, estimates made by the Polaris Project indicate there may be 21 million enslaved persons world-wide. But those are just estimates. *************************** Slavery is at least 5,000 years old, or perhaps more than twice that old. According to some scholars, the origins of this institution can be traced back 12,000 years, to the time when (many) humans made the transition from nomadism to sedentism, in other words, when they no longer moved about nearly all the time, hunting and gathering, and settled down, usually to become farmers. That’s when accumulating goods on a larger scale became an option. And it was a small step from being the proud owner of a goat or two, a hut, and a spare pair of sandals, to owning other human beings. Other scholars, such as Gerda Lerner (The Creation of Patriarchy, 1986), tell us that, some 5,000 years ago, women became a sort of slave “prototypes.” It was around this time that many ancient societies created patriarchy, and women became commodities, exchanged or given in marriage to men from other tribes. It was also around this time that it became customary in wars to kill enemy males and enslave their women, that is, to turn them into property (they would include the women’s young children too). Eventually it dawned on those people that males could and should also be enslaved as a source of income and/or free labor. We don’t need to agree one hundred percent with either one of these views. But we have evidence of slavery going back thousands of years and being practiced all over the globe. In trying to organize my thoughts I ran into several difficulties. I could not write about “ancient slavery” and then about “modern slavery” (meaning roughly from the 15th century onward) because the institution has followed an unbroken line. “Ancient slavery” didn’t disappear, only to be replaced by “modern slavery” later on. Also, in an attempt at dealing with, and staying within, geographical regions, I realized that slaves were not always supplied locally. The slave trade network has always had numerous and far-reaching tentacles. But around the 3rd century BC, humans began to be enslaved, owned, and traded in previously unheard-of numbers. With that in mind, I will begin in the “Old World” with the long period that preceded the mid- to late-Roman Republic before writing about the 3rd century changes. Sumer’s Code of Ur-Nammu (22nd century BC) regulates various aspects of slavery. No written code appears out of nowhere and simply “invents” a practice. Rather, a practice (in this case, slavery) can be around for centuries and be regulated by unwritten customs before the need arises to carve them in stone. Exactly how far back it went in the region of Sumer is not clear. And we do not know what percentage of the population was made up of slaves. Babylonia’s Code of Hammurabi (18th century BC) also regulates slavery, as do texts from the nearby Hittites, but again we have no statistics. And the warlike Assyrians left behind reliefs showing them taking slaves, something they did in rather large numbers after their victories. In Ancient Egypt, during the Middle Kingdom (which started in the 21st century BC), Asian slaves were being imported, but slavery was hardly new among the Egyptians of that era. From the New Kingdom on (starting in the 16th century BC) it became widespread, until about 10% of the population consisted of slaves, many of them Africans coming from south of the Sahara through the kingdom of Nubia. And one must not forget the time when the Hebrews (Habiru) were enslaved in Egypt until their departure traditionally thought to have taken place in the 15th century BC. The Hebrews were not only the victims of enslavement at some point, but they also owned both Hebrew and foreign slaves. Some evidence for that is found in the book of Exodus. In the Hellenic world (which we incorrectly refer to as “Greece”) there are records of slavery among the Myceneans of the 12th century BC. And in the city-state of Athens of the 5th century BC, somewhere between 7 and 20% of the population was made up of slaves. Although many of them came from Thrace, Scythia, and Asia Minor, they may have simply been purchased there but had their origins farther away. Ancient African cultures south of the Sahara owned slaves, usually taken as prisoners in war. And while some were kept, others were sold elsewhere, for example, Egypt (see above). Starting in the 5th century BC the Greeks and later the Romans began taking slaves in North Africa. Farther to the east, in ancient China of the Qin and Han dynasties (starting in the 3rd century BC) some men were sentenced to become public slaves, after being castrated, and sometimes their families were also enslaved. In ancient Rome, the second king, Numa Pompilius (8th century BC), regulated what jobs should be performed by slaves. That was three centuries before the Laws of the Twelve Tables (5th century BC) provide us with written evidence about slavery. Although initially the numbers of slaves in Rome were small, they quickly increased with the wars of conquest, beginning in the 3rd century BC. Soon aristocrats were acquiring and using large numbers to work their land. By the 1st century BC, about 30% of the population was made up of slaves, and in the 1st century AD there were perhaps 10 million slaves empire-wide. Although for many reasons the percentages dropped over the next couple of hundred years, in the 5th century AD we still find individuals, such as a noblewoman named Melania, who owned more than 30,000 slaves. *************************** In the 5th century AD, even as the leftovers of the Western Roman Empire fragmented and turned into many Germanic kingdoms, slavery and the far-reaching slave trade continued throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa, and even expanded. New land routes were added to previous ones (like the old trans-Saharan route), and ships carried slaves across the Mediterranean, the Aegean, the Black Sea, the Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean, usually in both directions. In the 8th century AD the Vikings and the Arabs began playing an ever more active role, both in ownership and the trade, and later other Muslims would join them. Some cities and towns became famous for their slave markets: Zawila south of the Sahara in the 8th century, Dublin in the 9th century, Prague in the 10th century, Verdun in the 11th century, Novgorod in the 12th century, Venice and Genoa in the 12th through the 15th centuries, and Lagos in Portugal in the 15th century. It is probably hard for nearly every person living in the 21st century accurately to say: “I know who all my ancestors were” or “I’m Danish or Irish or Spanish or whatever.” Here are a few examples to illustrate that: English slaves went to Italy and Spain, Irish slaves to Iceland and the Islamic empire, African slaves to Arabia and India, Slavic slaves to Byzantium, Korean slaves to China, Chinese slaves to Portugal and India, Portuguese slaves to Muslim Spain, Franks, Anglo-Saxons, and Russians to markets all over Europe and the Near East to be resold elsewhere. (See Note 1 at the end of this blog.) **************************** So far I have focused on the “Old World,” but slavery also existed in the “New World.” Yet, the dynamics changed after Columbus’ voyages. The Maya peoples of Mesoamerica owned slaves, often those who had been captured in war, although we have no statistics about percentages of the entire population. The same can be said about the Aztecs to the north, the Inca, the Tupanimbá (in Brazil), and the Tehuelche (in Patagonia) to the south, and the Caribs (in the Caribbean), among others. And what about the Americas farther north? Slaves were owned by many cultures in what are currently the United States and Canada. A few examples include the Comanche of Texas, the Creek of Georgia, the Yurok that lived along the coast from California to Alaska, the Pawnee, the Klamath, the Haida and the Tlingit of Alaska, and the Nootka of Vancouver Island. It is estimated that among some tribes in the Pacific Northwest, 25% of the population was made up of slaves. When the European voyages of exploration began in the 15th century, the dynamics of the slave trade and slavery itself changed. Not only did Spanish, Portuguese, English, French, and Dutch ships, among others, create new routes, but most of the slaves taken to the “New World” came from the African continent south of the Sahara. But it was not the Spanish, Portuguese, English, French, and Dutch themselves who went into the heart of Africa to take slaves. They merely acquired them at markets along the coast and transported them elsewhere. There were plenty of nations with slaves to sell: 30% of the population of Senegambia was made up of slaves, in the Islamic states of Mali and Ghana also 30%, in Bornu (in central Africa) about 40%, perhaps 90% in Arab Zanzibar (which, due to its location, was a convenient place for the creation of its large slave market; it is estimated that 80,000 Africans died each year before reaching that market). Other peoples with large numbers of slaves were the Ashanti, the Yoruba, and the people of the Kingdom of Kongo. But even those nations that had fewer slaves participated actively in the slave trade. Many of them waged war for the sole purpose of acquiring slaves, or else they organized raids: the Oyo Empire, the Kingdom of Benin, the Imamate of Futa Toro, the Kingdhom of Kaabu, the Ashanti Confederacy, the Kingdom of Dahomey, and many others. Then they sold their slaves to the Europeans, and most of them were taken to the Americas (somewhere between 12 and 20 million). Trading in slaves was not seen as something wrong, and statements have survived, made by African rulers, one of whom said the trade had been ordained by God himself (king of Bonny in present-day Nigeria), while another one said the trade was the source and glory of his people’s wealth (king of Dahomey But while this was going on, the Muslims continued buying slaves and sometimes capturing them themselves, then taking them overland (across the Sahara) or on ships crossing the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. Including the ones they sold to Europeans, they benefited from the sale of 25 to 35 million Africans. They also continued enslaving others, including Christians during the Ottoman wars. And Muslim pirates raided coastal cities in addition to taking ships, for the purpose of taking captives and selling them into slavery. In the 19th century, one country after another abolished the slave-trade, and then slavery itself. However, it took some African countries until the 20th century to follow suit. By then, countless individuals had been enslaved and sold, and used and abused, all over the world. Many still are, although outside of the context of legal slavery. **************************** Now I come back to the question which I posed in the title of my blog: Who is to blame for slavery? My readers will probably agree that there is no simple answer. Blame the Sumerians? The Egyptians? Slavery was hardly new when they began leaving evidence of slave-holding and trading more than 4,000 years ago. The Romans bought, sold, and used them on a much larger scale than other peoples, but they did not come up with the institution of slavery. Whether it was a byproduct of private property or of patriarchy, it had been around for a long time. We cannot blame the Mongols, the Arabs, the English, the French, or the Spanish either, despite the changes they made to trade and/or ownership. The same goes for all the individuals all over the globe who have participated in a system that was perceived to be OK. But we can blame those who, despite the fact that they operate outside the law, enslave and sell human beings in the 21st century. And I want to encourage all those who are aware of trafficking to speak up. **************************** Note 1. Being forcefully transported from one’s place of origin is, of course, not the only reason why our ancestors moved. The search for better land or opportunities, as well as the need to escape persecution, religious or of another nature, are a few other reasons that account for that. Note 2. As the reader may have noticed, no attempt has been made to describe the many ways in which a person could become a slave, or about how slaves were treated in different parts of the world at different times, and even in the same part of the world depending on a number of factors. But there are some excellent books that go into a lot of detail, including the following: Five Thousand Years of Slavery (Marjorie Gann and Janet Willen; 2011), and Slavery and Social Death (Orlando Patterson; 1982).