Tellingly, Grant says barely a word about the women at the heart of this debate: those who are enslaved and coerced—illegal immigrants, young girls, runaways and throwaways, many of them survivors of sexual trauma, as well as transwomen and others cast out of mainstream society. Poor people, like the Chinese- and Korean-speaking women who are bused every morning from Queens to work in Nassau County massage parlors, or drug addicts doing survival sex in the Bronx, or the Honduran teenagers trafficked by a popular, politically connected New Jersey restaurateur—these girls and women are nowhere to be found in her pages. Nor does Grant concern herself with women like those Liberty Aldrich of the Center for Court Innovation told me she works with, the vast majority of whom would like to leave sex work but need help to do it—to get a GED, a place to live, connections to people who care about them.The “sex work is work” cliché is that prostitution is much like any other service job—being a waitress is the usual example. I dunno how many waitresses would agree with that, and I don’t think anyone at Jacobin is asking them. But seriously, is it just prudery or fear of arrest or attack or stigma that keeps the vast majority of women working straight jobs? Maybe there’s a difference between a blowjob and a slice of pie—one that is occluded when all types of service work are collapsed into one, a difference that today’s young left feminists don’t want to think about. To acknowledge that sex work is exploitative—that it involves a particularly intimate form of male privilege, which bleeds into other areas of life—would be too sentimental, and too disturbing. It would mean, for example, thinking not just about the exhilarating figure of the sex worker but about the customer. This faceless man could be anyone: your colleague, your boyfriend, your father, your husband. Theoretically, if it’s OK to be a sex worker, it’s OK to be a john—after all, sex workers would be jobless without them. Do pro–sex work feminists really think that, though? I’d like to see an issue of Jacobin devoted to first-person accounts of buying sex. But men of the left seem content to let women fight the commercial sex battle for them. It’s chicks up front all over again.
i’m frequently visited by three spirits at night
- the ghost of i fucked up
- the ghost of i’m currently fucking up
- and the ghost of i’m probably going to fuck up in the future
Mar. 22 2014
A Chicago man was killed Wednesday while protecting his only daughter during an alleged hate crime.
Fifty-nine-year-old Michael Tingling was walking his 15-year-old daughter, Masharah, home from school around 2 p.m. when he noticed Joseph Firek, 59, making inappropriate gestures towards her, according to the Chicago Tribune.
Firek approached the girl, Tingling stepped in and a fight ensued.
“He was staring at me up and down, eyeballing me,” Masharah said to NBC Chicago. “My dad, being a father, he got protective and put me behind him and told the guy to go away.”
During the altercation, Firek allegedly punched Tingling, who has a pacemaker, in the chest, causing him to go into cardiac arrest, reports the Chicago Sun-Times.
Firek allegedly used racial slurs while hitting Masharah’s father.
Tingling was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital.
“My dad can’t see me go to eighth grade graduation,” the eighth grader told NBC Chicago. “That’s all he wanted to do was see me graduate.”
this breaks my heart
The term ‘gender’ itself is problematic. It was first used in a sense that was not simply about grammar, by sexologists, the scientists of sex, such as John Money, in the 1950s and 60s, who were involved in normalising intersex infants. They used the term to mean the behavioural characteristics they considered most appropriate for persons of one or other biological sex. They applied the concept of gender when deciding upon the sex category into which those infants who did not have clear physical indications of one biological sex or another, should be placed. Their purpose was not progressive. These were conservative men who believed that there should be clear differences between the sexes and sought to create distinct sex categories through their projects of social engineering. Unfortunately, the term was adopted by some feminist theorists in the 1970s, and by the late 1970s was commonly used in academic feminism to indicate the difference between biological sex and those characteristics that derived from politics and not biology, which they called ‘gender’.
Before the term ‘gender’ was adopted, the term more usually used to describe these socially constructed characteristics was ‘sex roles’. The word ‘role’ connotes a social construction and was not susceptible to the degeneration that has afflicted the term ‘gender’ and enabled it to be wielded so effectively by transgender activists. As the term ‘gender’ was adopted more extensively by feminists, its meaning was transformed to mean not just the socially constructed behaviour associated with biological sex, but the system of male power and women’s subordination itself, which became known as the ‘gender hierarchy’ or ‘gender order’. Gradually, older terms to describe this system, such as male domination, sex class and sex caste went out of fashion, with the effect that direct identification of the agents responsible for the subordination of women, men, could no longer be named. Gender, as a euphemism, disappeared men as agents in male violence against women, which is now commonly referred to as ‘gender violence’. Increasingly, the term ‘gender’ is used, in official forms and legislation, for instance, to stand in for the term ‘sex’ as if ‘gender’ itself is biological, and this usage has overwhelmed the feminist understanding of gender.
People are inventing labels that are always between masculinity and femininity. There is no outside of the gender hierarchy (or as they call it “spectrum”).
What’s so “non binary” about this? These gender labels are still related to both harmful gender roles. The only thing that changes is the the distance between the labels and the top/the bottom of the gender hierarchy (or both sides of the “spectrum”).
That’s still binarism. Even all those agender/neutrois etc labels still depend on masculinity or feminity. Because without the gender hierarchy (or “spectrum”) these labels would be meaningless.
"DENVER — A state-run women’s wellness program now provides breast and cervical cancer screenings for transgender women, announced the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Wednesday…
Having a cervix is a state of mind. O__o”
funds that could be used on actual fucking services for women is going towards pandering delusional males, of fucking course. i am so angry.
is this real life
well, breast exams makes sense, since both males and females can get breast cancer. the cervix thing is just weird though.
if having a cervix is a state of mind, then… well… i guess i’ll just stop having my periods then, because i really don’t want them, and i’ll just will power myself out of them every month lol
(also, if you’re concerned about trans people - RUDE to trans men. they don’t tend to love their periods)
Jennifer Blair wanted breast cancer screenings, they’re not giving cervical cancer screenings to people without cervixes.
The article says that cervical screenings are included and then provides a link to the Wellness Center for more information that redirects you to the page specifically for cervical screenings? There’s not much more info besides that. Can anyone provide any extra? I don’t want this on my blog if it’s not true but that’s what the article says
It says screenings to anybody that has said body part.
but if males need breast cancer screenings, and one can argue that this should be part of male health whether that male is transgendered and identifies as a woman or not, why then the obfuscating language that removes women’s health care from the female body?
Blair sued a woman’s health clinic because the screening funds came from the CDC and the CDC specified that these funds were for genetic females. So actually what this means now is the CDC will not do female specific funding of healthcare and money that is earmarked for women it must now also include males, this is another way to read this. And trans women also need screenings for prostate cancer, but I don’t see any trans women out there protesting that money is being set aside for them as genetic males in order to be tested for sex specific cancers.
I don’t know personally, I’m of the opinion I think trans women need to start their own health clinics, trans women have their own very unique, very specific healthcare needs that are not part of women’s healthcare and and I also think that women should be able to prioritize women. Males have never prioritized female healthcare and have treated the female body as though it is a deformed male, this has been a problem and that was something that the feminists in the 70s fought for, but here we are having to prioritize males healthcare needs again and taking the focus off of females and it’s obscures the fact that female bodies are not the same as male bodies and that we have different healthcare needs.
And why is it that women’s health care clinics are supposed to divert funds and focus to the healthcare needs of trans women when trans women are biologically male? this makes no sense, why are trans women not asking gay men’s health clinics to change their programs and use their funds to meet the needs of trans women? From a public health standpoint this actually makes sense, trans women and gay men are both male and doctors that work at men’s health clinic have specialized in treating the male bodied, gay men also have prostates and need anal Pap smears to prevent anal cancer, and both populations have the highest rates of HIV and SDI infections and there’s even direct overlapping in clients as some some trans women are living as gay males before transitioning.
I think women healthcare clinics should be allowed to focus on female healthcare, I do not see any pressures for Gay men’s health clinics to meet the needs of trans men, females who identifies males, and divert their funds to hire gynecologists to provide cervical cancer screening, breast-cancer screenings, and female birth control
I understand what you mean. However (and this has been said to me by my own doctor) after a certain time on hormones the male body does become more susceptible to female issues. Breast cancer being one of them because of the increased amount of breast tissue. Any one who practices anal sex should receive anal Pap smears.
While the whole reason why a trans woman would need a cervix exam is beyond me, perhaps those techniques or machinery are useful for post operative transsexuals. Again, this is something that I don’t know.
But I do agree with you that trans women do need there own specialized clinics. However we’re a long ways away from something like that being widely available enough for it to be viable.
that’s why i say partner with gay men, so many of the same issues, from the CDC, "Transgender women are at high risk for HIV infection. By race/ethnicity, black/African American transgender women have the highest percentage of new HIV-positive test results.", gay men have been organizing for 40 years around treatment and prevention of HIV, who would be better to serve this community than one who has been facing these same issues. and it wouldn’t hurt for gay men to be screened for breast cancer, they are not at high a risk as trans women but men are still at risk. And gay men have money, why not advocate for gay men to meet the health needs of trans women?
I haven’t had healthcare for most of my life, and I’ve been reliant on local, community women’s clinic and most women’s clinics, in my experience, are run by nurse practitioners who specialize in women’s health and asking them to switchgears get additional training, which cost money, to specialize in transgendered women healthcare is neither practical or logical from a public-health perspective and could put the clinic at risk for being sued for malpractice as nurse practitioners are not trained as endocrinologists and trans women like to sue.
Issues in women’s health are already ignored and unfunded, things like reproductive coercion birth control pills that kill birth-control methods that are killing people, racial and economic disparities in breast cancer screening, treatment and survival , access to birth control by health insurance is still being contested in the Supreme Court, never mind access to safe legal abortions which is rapidly becoming a thing of the past
so I really can’t see the CDC deciding that money earmarked for female centric health care can also be applied to males is really a victory. I’m also really not behind this ruling with the CDC, as Blair is also suing the women’s health clinic that didn’t give her the breast-cancer screening because the CDC funds were earmarked for females- and I can’t see that suing women’s health clinics is really good for women, it’s going to cut in funding and it’s going to cut in services
one of the richest people in the world is a trans woman and Pritzker’s busy funding transgender inclusion in the military- and Lupron for children and Parker Malloy can do a go-fund-me kick starter thing for $30,000 new face, and there are tons of go-fund-me sites for personal surgeries, I think the trans community would be better served looking at raising money for community needs-trans specific shelters and trans specific healthcare clinics and not individual needs. and again I think partnering with gay men health advocates and clinics makes a lot more sense medically for trans women it and it doesn’t cut into the funds and services that are already not there for poor women