Today was TERF week in class. It was definitely a subject that seemed to strike a nerve with most of us in class. The idea of a TERF is so absurd, that when I explained the concept to my mom today after class she burst out laughing and called my dad to laugh about it with him as well. Unfortunately, having to come to face to face with the reality that there are more TERFs than I had hoped or imagine was truly chilling and upsetting. I especially liked having Damien in class today, I thought his discussion presentation was devastatingly eye-opening and informative. Overall, despite the infuriating subject matter, I think the class was productive. I do however wish we had maybe come up with something of a plan on how to deal with TERF rhetoric when we encounter it in our lives. It’s completely possible that nothing we could come up with would work, but it wouldn’t hurt to try.

Susan Stryker writes about the history of transgender people, and this excerpt focuses on the transgender experience within the feminist community. According to Stryker, a considerable amount of conflict started in the 1970s, when Beth Elliott, a male to female transsexual, was excluded from feminist conferences. Elliot was proclaimed by radical feminists to be “not really a woman” (130). The quotes that Stryker uses from radical feminists at the time are incredibly transphobic and hateful; in many cases, I was surprised at how explicit their hate was. On the other hand, we shouldn’t be surprised that the transgender community was so vehemently discriminated against. This is another case of the feminist community, which should be a safe place to the oppressed, are excluded. Many radical feminists refused to refer to transgender women as “she,” saying that they don’t have the right to identify as women when they have not experienced the oppression women struggle with. These radical feminists say that for transgender women to identify as women is encompassing the mentality of a rapist, for how they are taking from “real women.”

The idea of transgender people having a mentality of rape is obviously drastic and untrue. Where that notion stems from seems to be that trans exclusionary radical feminists desire women-only spaces, and that they view male-to-female transgender people as appropriating women’s bodies.

Talking about feminist conflict throughout this semester has shown how central conflict is to any political movement. In feminist spaces, I’ve seen that conflict frequently results from exclusionary practices, and that it’s necessary to put differences aside and adopt inclusive methods. It seems like the radical feminists are a drastic and harmful example of how explicit and hateful the exclusion can be. While many white feminists were exclusionary towards black women, they often tried to claim that they were on the same team. This shows a different and explicit way that some radical feminists were exclusive.

Kai Green writes about the trans community, and specifically a relationship between Trans* and black lesbians. A lot of Green’s piece focuses on the language that is used surrounding Trans*. Green states that the use of Trans* is an attempt of a “decolonial demand; a question of how, when, and where one sees and knows; a reading practice that might help readers gain a reorientation to orientation” (67). Green shows the importance of the language used when exploring identity, which I think is important to this discussion. Green also states that black women have “not had the privilege of easy access to the category ‘women’; too big, too tough, too strong, too black, too masculine” (71). This conversation, as it relates to black lesbian women, is that Trans*, like black women, do not have easy access to a single category within the language that exists.

Green also centers much of the piece around a case example; Alycee Lane, who ran a magazine for black lesbians. A lot of the discussion of Lane’s magazine in relation to Trans* reminded me of discussions last week, of the sex wars. Green discusses the distinction between love and lovemaking, sensation and sensation with feeling. Lorde discussed the uses of the erotic, and made a comparison between sensation and sensation with feeling. Lane, on the other hand, believes that there should be no judgement of either, and that instead we should aim to make room for all of these experiences. This reminded me of talking about the sex wars, and wondering if sometimes sex is taken too seriously. I think from a lot of the conflicts that we’ve reviewed in class, inclusion and embracing conflict have been the key when feminist conflict has surfaced, and Green does a good job of presenting how this same process should be applied to this conflict.

Finn Enke’s article asserts the importance of engaging with the past in order to understand and progress in the present, and in the future. When discussing the exclusionary nature of “1970s Feminism”, and the ways in which beliefs of this time are connected to present-day acts of hate, Enke notes that, “… if we write off “1970s feminism,” we lose feminism’s deeply questioning, queer, coalitional and anti-imperialist past; we miss some relevant grappling of that era, and the way that the grappling itself offers useful lessons”. This statement by Enke highlights the importance of acknowledging the past and applying the lessons learned to present conflicts and disputes. In addition to this, it is  emphasized that refusing to acknowledge and question the past is counter intuitive to feminism itself.

Connecting this to transfeminist history, Enke mentions the harmful effects of using a framework of “binary opposition and categorization”. This is to say that the denial of the mixing of transfeminism – “the separation of trans from feminism – crafts a history that establishes feminism as always being separate and distinct from transness. One part of the article that I thought was interesting was Enke’s mention of Beth Elliot and her experience with transitioning, medical industry, and having to conceal her being a lesbian in order to fit into a more “ideal”/socially normative version of womanhood. When Enke references Elliot’s experience at the LA Gay Women’s Conference, a conversation between members of whether or not to include all women or only lesbians in an upcoming art exhibit concludes in joking about the prospect of making women prove that they are lesbians. However, as Enke notes, this was an actual debate happening in regards to other conferences and spaces which were attempting to establish strict and separate definitions of “lesbian” and “feminist”, and those who were trans, like Elliot, were essentially considered threats to this goal of enforcing rigid binaries.

In this piece Kai Green is taking on the conversation of how black feminist thought critiqued the way white feminism conceives “womanhood”, while black lesbian feminists still are holding on to the conceived notion of womanhood when they reject trans bodies. A large question Green asks is what does it mean to be a woman? Green then goes on to use a trans view/ method to try and open this question up and make room for trans or any non-conforming bodies to also exist in. 

Green writes, “I want to mine trans for its use value as a method or optic, one that, similar to queer, refuses temporal or spatial fixity. Moreover, I use it to articulate a unique relation between two or more identity categories where one marks the limits and excess of the other, simultaneously deconstructing and reconstructing or reimagining new possible ways of being and doing (pg.66).” While I admit I had to re-read these couple sentences a few times, I believe Green is creating a new lens to view, undo, and create a way to either fix, bridge, or build on existing identity categories.

The focus on naming was very interesting for me.  I loved the way Green used it to point out issues of other identities within the Black lesbian feminist community and societal community as a whole. And then gave “trans” as a way to show the need for viewing “naming” as ever changing and forever pliable to accurately credit people’s ongoing transformations. 

Sandy Stone on Living Among Lesbian Separatists as a Trans Woman in the 70s, is part of a growing archive of interviews with transgender icons and pioneers. In this particular piece, Zackary Drucker interviews Allucquére Rosanne “Sandy” Stone, a transgender icon whose courageous tale is centered around the time of 1970s radical lesbian feminism. In the interview, Drucker and Stone discuss the troubles that Stone faced living as a trans woman in the 1970s and how that affected and shaped her personal and professional life.

Like many trans individuals, Stone had a hard time being accepted by society. Throughout the 70s she struggled with her identity and her work. She was and still is, a brilliant woman who is coined “the original trans girl computer hacker.” She has years of experience as a music engineer and even built a computer in the early 1980s. However, this brilliance did not go unchallenged. She was denounced by TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) and other trans-exclusionaries throughout her career. In one particular instance that she recalls, Stone describes attending a community meeting where she was met with angry TERFs who were calling for her expulsion from Olivia Records because they claimed that she was really a man, not a woman. To which Stone replies, in what I think is a great response, “First of all, that’s all bullshit!” Unfortunately, this response was not taken well and did not help her case. Threats continued to trickle into Stone’s life but she dealt with them the only way she knew how, saying, “okay, you’re in the present, something’s happening that hurts like hell, just be with it, now it goes away.”

Despite the challenges that Stone faced throughout her life, she made many great strides for trans individuals. In 1987 she produced the academic discipline of transgender studies by publishing The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto. She also describes being unlike many other public trans women of her time. She says, “I thought of myself as a woman, but at the time when thinking of oneself as a stereotypical woman probably involved homemaking. It didn’t involve anything like that, and it never has.”

This piece was very interesting to me and I loved how it was formatted in a Q & A structure. To read how Sandy Stone actually responded to each question gives you a sense of who she is as a person. It was also nice to read about how Stone dealt with discrimination and hardships in a time when being trans was not widely accepted—although, it still to this day really isn’t. I especially liked the final question about Sandy’s first name, Allucquére. She explains how it was from a science fiction novel and when first learning about the character whom she named herself after she says, “This is a woman who is known by one name who in fact, down a couple of layers of reality, has another name and layer of reality,” which describes Stone’s self pretty well as well.

We began talking about the Barnard Conference, a conference that took place in 1982 during the Feminist sex wars. We discussed how many of the debates and conversations that took place at this conference are still relevant today. In fact, there is a conference that is very similar to this one that still takes place with similar topics. When discussing questions on the invitation to the presenters, we discussed how the question about daring to question traditional sexuality and sexual arrangements of the current political climate. This is incredibly relevant today in our political climate with examples such as Kavanaugh, the President, and many other government representatives who have been accused of sexual harassment. When discussing the workshops, we began with the discussion of male gaze, specifically in pornography. We debated whether the male gaze could ever be used by women or appropriated to benefit women. We then discussed the connections between pornography, advertising and Hollywood cinema and anti-abortion activists. We considered the question: how do you respond to someone who argues against facts? We then read Rubin’s piece that criticizes sadomachism through a radical feminist analysis and “Thinking Sex.” Natural vs. unnatural categories in sex are damaging yet still a huge part of our culture. Is sexuality an identity or an action? If someone defines themselves as their sexuality, then it would be there identity. We finished the class discussing BDSM and racism.

Against Sadomasochism is a book featuring many different pieces from different authors from the feminist and women’s movement. As clearly stated by the title of the work, all of the pieces have something that finds issue with, or disagrees with the political leaning of sadomasochism. Some of the criticism surrounding this issue is that it is degressive to women’s rights and the feminist movement. As the introduction of the anthology states, “it really doesn’t matter how many women practice sadomasochism; as long as sexuality and intimacy are expressed through the paradigms of domination and humiliation, then sadomasochism will affect each of our lives” (3). This outlines the argument that as long as women are playing out roles of dominance and submission, they are contributing to a form of women’s submission to the patriarchy. Other criticism calls into question whether or not consent is realistic in sadomasochism, based on societal factors already in place. In addition, there is also a focus of the criticism based on the fact that the topic is highlighted as part of the lesbian community. Most of the authors reject the idea that it is only an issue within the lesbian community.

I particularly liked Audre Lorde’s dissection of this debate. Lorde states that the humiliation and domination is “not about sex, but about how we use power” (70). Even though I like and understand this point made by Lorde, I remain confused about this topic in general. I think of myself as a sex positive person, and I don’t want to shame people for being interested in certain sexual acts, for the most part. However, I do think it’s important to analyze the roots of these desires. In relation to this, I think Lorde’s question is important in analyzing sexual desires: “How does our sexuality enrich us and empower our actions?” (71).

Lastly, while I do remain unconvinced of either side of this debate, I particularly liked the piece of this anthology that discussed sadomasochism in relation to race. When thinking about the sex wars, I have sometimes felt like it has been a white feminist issue. Not that this debate doesn’t affect all women, but that the conversation has felt exclusionary to women of color, who may have very different experiences of sex and power. Overall, I found it helpful to read this side of the debate on sadomasochism, and look forward to discussing it more in depth.

Every time I learn more about the way sex and sexuality has been created historically, I only become more ashamed and confused of our history, but also equally as fascinated. A socially constructed definition of morality that is held by a small percentage of the population, is somehow able to consume our politics. Not only that, but to control our social world and how women are able to interact in it. There has been such little research on the topic, especially in the time periods that were being discussed in the text, yet there is no level of difficulty in receiving ground and support from others.

According to the text, the Right wing opposed “sex education, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, and premarital sex.” Meanwhile, they were also supporting programs like the Adolescent Family Life Program, or the Teen Chastity Program, which received “15 million dollars to encourage teenagers to refrain from sexual intercourse, and to discourage them from using contraceptives if they do have sex, and from having abortions if they get pregnant.” It is extremely clear to see that restraining and controlling women was an influential goal here. The standards of morality create the expectation that women are unable to act upon their sexual nature. When these are not conformed to, she will be forced to bear the punishment, as there are no options for safe sex. She will undoubtedly be ostracized for the rest of her life as a result of her illegitimate child and it will live as proof to her mistakes, not that of the father’s.

It could be said that masturbation, homosexuality, contraceptives, and other sexual acts are considered deviant because they do not promote reproduction and that could be considered an important aspect of humanity. However, this is contradicted through not acknowledging children out of wedlock, simply for their lack of a formal union. If it was about reproductive rates, childbearing should be encouraged, regardless.

Based on this, I really don’t see how there was any other motivation to this mindset, other than to disenfranchise women. It’s unfortunate that rather than uniting to overcome this, women ended up attacking each other for their autonomy to express their sexuality. This negative view of sexual liberation, rooted from a cultural definition of morality, ended up dividing women and creating conflict within the feminist movement.

In Ariane Cruz’ excerpt of The Color of Kink, she explores the representation of Black women and the performances within American BDSM and pornography. It revealed numerous ways of how the violence of Black women performers can illustrate the complexity and contradictory dynamics of pleasure, power, and pain. Cruz further explores the two differing opinions of Black queer writers, Audre Lorde and Tina Portillo, on BDSM. Lorde argues that “BDSM perpetuates the inevitability of social domination and subordination” meaning that society has embedded the dominance-submission relationships and power of culture. On the other hand, Portillo is a BDSM practitioner whom believes that “if someone desires a scenario such as plantation slave and master or cowboy and Indian, as long as it is mutual and done in a loving spirit that’s all that matters and all I care about” as long as it is mutually consensual. This brought into a larger debate of the sex wars between SAMOIS, a San Fransisco based, who argued that BDSM is a pleasurable sexual expression critiquing heteropatriarchy and gendered hierarchies of power.

Cruz also detailed what Alice Walker wrote in, “A Letter of the Times, or Should This Sado-Masochism Be Saved?” A teacher asked her students to imagine and write a narrative of their own from the POV of the women. Through fantasy and race play, Walker asserted that “black women do not want to be slaves.”