sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2007-02-09 01:40 pm
sophiaserpentia) wrote2007-02-09 01:40 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Well, i feel i need to say a few things about this.
from Supreme Court Of Canada Declines Transsexual Case
I don't agree with VRR's exclusion of Nixon, but i disagree MUCH MORE with the decision to take this to the courts at all.
Issues of disagreement between transactivists and radical feminists are not going to be resolved by calling in the state's apparatus of coersion. The state is singularly ill-equipped to handle disagreements between radicals. Adversity in this disagreement should not be escalated -- which is the only way that the legal system really knows how to handle disagreements.
Reconciliation between these two groups of activists is not about "winning victories," because a situation where any radical is forced against her will to submit to a state-enforced "remedy" against her conscience is not anything to celebrate about.
There is no real solution if one comes at this with the attitude of, "Well, i'll bring you around to seeing things my way." That attitude is reminiscent of the society of domination which we are trying to unravel. So the starting place is willingness to find an understanding.
In looking for a starting place for the solution here, i'm thinking of the essay on coalition politics by Bernice Johnson Reagon which i cited a month ago:
Running with this... the solution begins with recognizing that you don't really have any choice but to figure out how to co-exist and work towards your mutual goals together. In the case of transactivists and radical feminists, the thing is that individuals from both camps already encounter one another in the community, and their lives are frequently intertwined -- so there is no avoiding one another.
But anyway, if someone will not or cannot recognize mutual need, then that one is not ready to be your ally and there are no grounds to begin reconciling yet.
IMO a good next step is agreeing to sit together, even if silence in one another's presence or conversation about other topics is the only alternative to argument. But i think underlying this there needs to be an understanding that one will not just easily give up and walk out. Togetherness and respect for sisterhood is meaningful, even when there is disagreement, and it can be the foundation for further understanding.
The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday declined to hear the case of a transsexual woman who was denied a job at a rape crisis center because she was not born biologically female.
For 12 years Kimberly Nixon has been battling the Vancouver Rape Relief which turned her down for a job at its facility in Vancouver which provides a safe-house for battered and raped women, and a crisis phone line.
from Supreme Court Of Canada Declines Transsexual Case
I don't agree with VRR's exclusion of Nixon, but i disagree MUCH MORE with the decision to take this to the courts at all.
Issues of disagreement between transactivists and radical feminists are not going to be resolved by calling in the state's apparatus of coersion. The state is singularly ill-equipped to handle disagreements between radicals. Adversity in this disagreement should not be escalated -- which is the only way that the legal system really knows how to handle disagreements.
Reconciliation between these two groups of activists is not about "winning victories," because a situation where any radical is forced against her will to submit to a state-enforced "remedy" against her conscience is not anything to celebrate about.
There is no real solution if one comes at this with the attitude of, "Well, i'll bring you around to seeing things my way." That attitude is reminiscent of the society of domination which we are trying to unravel. So the starting place is willingness to find an understanding.
In looking for a starting place for the solution here, i'm thinking of the essay on coalition politics by Bernice Johnson Reagon which i cited a month ago:
I feel as if I’m gonna keel over any minute and die. That is often what it feels like if you’re really doing coalition work. Most of the time you feel threatened to the core and if you don’t, you’re not really doing no coalescing. ... The only reason you would consider trying to team up with somebody who could possibly kill you, is because that’s the only way you can figure you can stay alive.
Running with this... the solution begins with recognizing that you don't really have any choice but to figure out how to co-exist and work towards your mutual goals together. In the case of transactivists and radical feminists, the thing is that individuals from both camps already encounter one another in the community, and their lives are frequently intertwined -- so there is no avoiding one another.
But anyway, if someone will not or cannot recognize mutual need, then that one is not ready to be your ally and there are no grounds to begin reconciling yet.
IMO a good next step is agreeing to sit together, even if silence in one another's presence or conversation about other topics is the only alternative to argument. But i think underlying this there needs to be an understanding that one will not just easily give up and walk out. Togetherness and respect for sisterhood is meaningful, even when there is disagreement, and it can be the foundation for further understanding.