I read this article, and all I could think of is "what the hell?!?" I'm used to people not "getting" transsexuality. But this article is far, far more...

What really upsets me is that a columnist who ostensibly has some clout (as Slate's chief national correspondent) appears to be being a jerk because it gets him off. What's with the flippant attitude towards genital mutilation? His delighting in "sexsomnia" and the fact that five jurors were women? His bringing up that old people have sex, apparently for the sake of saying that old people have sex? And did he really put a link to a story (that he also wrote) that deals with people who modify their bodies to look like other animals (complete with a charming cartoon) in the middle of his bit of sex reassignment surgery? He's all over the place, and it's all bizarre. It smacks of sensationalism that denigrates all kinds of people.

I'm left to conclude that either:
1)William Saletan is one of the dumbest, most out-of-touch people ever to write for a major "mainstream" blog
-or-
2)William Saletan is being incredibly disingenuous.

Either way, WTF? I mean seriously, Slate.. W.T.F.?

I'm not sure he's totally conflating the two things. That column is updated every so often with new stories, which are often related but separate. If you scroll down, you'll see that the next blurb is about an obesity-causing virus, followed by information about out-of-body experiences, and then sex among the elderly. Certainly he doesn't seem to be conflating ALL those things together.

Granted, he's drawing a somewhat inappropriate parallel, but I'm not sure he needs to be taken to task so harshly.

Likewise, that question about genital mutilation being a crime if you don't want it and a right if you do demonstrates a pretty clear lack of understanding. But if you read some of the past paragraphs in the column, you'll see he always poses questions and reactions from multiple sides of an issue. He's definitely not showing a particularly high level of enlightenment or sensitivity, but I don't think he's being as intolerant as he's being made out to be.

Plus it's probably worth noting that he expresses feminist views in the blurb about female genital mutilation, as well as in the "female circumcision vs. male circumcision" article that that paragraph links to.

"Is genital mutilation a crime if you don’t want it but a right if you do?"

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

"Is genital mutilation a crime if you don’t want it but a right if you do?"

Is decapitation brain surgery?

He certainly didn't leave me with the feeling that I would benefit from visiting his column again. I expect that the question was posed as an attention-grabber without giving a thought to how it would sound to a transsexual. Perhaps that would be too much of the "PC"ness that conservative writers like to take a stand against.

Is decapitation brain surgery?

Wow, orange pop just came out my nose...

Saletan's problem is that he's very smart a large portion of the time, but a serious brain fart seems to occur in about 1/3 of his articles that relate to gender issues, abortion, obesity, etc. His stem cell writing, which is extensive, is generally top notch.

Pup, MD has it right, except that - in my experience - it's anything having to do with sex or sexuality (as well as what she said, I assume).

My personal opinion, hugely biased no doubt, is that he's simply a prude, and deeply uncomfortable discussing or even considering what consenting and adventurous adults do in the privacy of their front yards, or whatever.

Wow, that was another classic "WTF?" moment. Just like when Brownback asked if getting an abortion would solve any problems for a rape victim. Yeah, duh. What was your point again?

Is genital mutilation a crime if you don’t want it but a right if you do?

What the fuck, he's surprised at this concept? That people get a say in what happens to them, and being stuck with OR forced into the unwanted option is a violation of rights?

Does he get a choice in what faith he is? Does he get a choice in whether and with whom to have sex with? Does he get a choice in whether and what financial transactions to engage in? I'd love to see the guy's face if someone told him that since coercing him into converting to, say, Islam, is a crime in this country, he's not allowed to be Christian. Or that since rape is a crime, he's not allowed to have sex. Or that since he agreed to purchase a car some time ago, he's got no cause to complain when somebody gives him a can of Coke and takes seven thousand dollars from him in return.

There's a lot of things that are rights if you want them and crimes if you don't. It's called living in a free country where people are individuals and want different things.

weirdly enough, I think that his initial points are kinda interesting.

"4) If the family that forced the woman into FGM finds out she's been repaired, they'll put her through it again. 5) If they think FGM is reversible, they'll be less hesitant to do it in the first place."

I don't know whether or not that's -backed up-, but it is a thought. (This coming from the standpoint of an anthropology grad student)

That is at least an -attempt- at addressing the issues from multiple standpoints. (maybe I'm being generous?) I don't know that I would read his article, certainly not from what he suggested in the second section.

The second bit might be some kind of thought experiment, but it's a loaded question. And if you read the comments section, a lot of people (in the first ten or so, I didn't read farther than that) say basically that.

I am a trans woman who had genital reassignment surgery (GRS) three months ago and the truely offensive thing about Saletan's column is this procedure as "mutilation". In a comment in Slate's "The Fray" he reveals that he didn't just do this to be cute: http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/271144/ShowThread.aspx#271144

"FGM is a pretty simple issue to a libertarian individualist like me. Nobody gets to mutilate you without your consent, and coerced consent is a fraud. On the other hand, if you want to be mutilated, i.e. to change your genitals, I'm not going to try to stop you, except to make sure you understand that the mutilation can't be reversed as easily as you can change your mind."

Thanks for your concern, Mr. Saletan, but your repeated use of the word "mutilated" shows that you came into this discussion with a biased, transphobic viewpoint. I won't respect anything you have to say until you prove that you respect me.

Just throwing a few things out there.

1). Taken further, and I realize this article isn't referring to this, I would like to argue that sexual reassignment surgery at birth on intersexed children, is indeed comparable to FGM.

2). Feminism and anthropology often conflict with one another. It may be useful to note that often the "let's rescue women in Africa from mutilation" mentality is quite assimilationist, ethnocentric and even imperialistic. Not that I agree that FGM is empowering or even okay--I do think that it is oppressive, I also want to acknowledge that this is not the case for all women. There are women in Africa that claim that this is a way of culture for them. I recognize that my westernized view effects my decision as to what liberation means, and that I am not familiar through rites of passage of that culture, however patriarchal/oppressive I may view them to be.

3). # 2 extended--Perhaps the argument of 'consent' is what should be considered. When the author asks whether it is a crime if one doesn't wish it and a respectable action if one does, it may help to question consent. Why does one wish to have reassignment surgery? Why does the world make one feel like s/he would need to? How does this differ from other bodily procedures i.e., breast implants, breast reductions, liposuction, tattooing, piercing, s/m, self-mutilation, eating disorders, and so on.

I am interested to hear any ideas anyone would like to throw out there/respond to...

+0

Just throwing a few things out there.

1). Taken further, and I realize this article isn't referring to this, I would like to argue that sexual reassignment surgery at birth on intersexed children, is indeed comparable to FGM.

2). Feminism and anthropology often conflict with one another. It may be useful to note that often the "let's rescue women in Africa from mutilation" mentality is quite assimilationist, ethnocentric and even imperialistic. Not that I agree that FGM is empowering or even okay--I do think that it is oppressive, I also want to acknowledge that this is not the case for all women. There are women in Africa that claim that this is a way of culture for them. I recognize that my westernized view effects my decision as to what liberation means, and that I am not familiar through rites of passage of that culture, however patriarchal/oppressive I may view them to be.

3). # 2 extended--Perhaps the argument of 'consent' is what should be considered. When the author asks whether it is a crime if one doesn't wish it and a respectable action if one does, it may help to question consent. Why does one wish to have reassignment surgery? Why does the world make one feel like s/he would need to? How does this differ from other bodily procedures i.e., breast implants, breast reductions, liposuction, tattooing, piercing, s/m, self-mutilation, eating disorders, and so on.

I am interested to hear any ideas anyone would like to throw out there/respond to...

+0

If refusing to accept "culture" or "tradition" as a legitimate excuse for inflicting unconscionable physical and mental pain on another human being makes me an imperialist, then, I guess, call me Ms Imperialist.

If refusing to accept "culture" or "tradition" as a legitimate excuse for inflicting unconscionable physical and mental pain on another human being makes me an imperialist, then, I guess, call me Ms Imperialist.

And this is precisely where a lot of purportedly "multiculturalist" arguments begin to show signs of dry rot. How exactly is it less imperialist to decide to support the more reactionary, patriarchal, and inhumane aspects of a culture rather than helping to amplify the voice of the victims?

You can find someone who will say just about any cultural practise is wonderful. Hell, if you went back 150 years, you could probably find one or two slaves who would tell you how good they have it (just as segregationists could always find a few African Americans who would agree with them). And, of course, right this moment, you can find hundreds of thousands of women who will give you a detailed apologia on behalf of the husbands who just beat them.

When listening to anyone tell us that enslavement, violence, mutilation, etc. is somehow "empowering" or otherwise lovely, we should ask ourselves: "What would happen to her if she said otherwise?"

"And this is precisely where a lot of purportedly 'multiculturalist' arguments begin to show signs of dry rot. How exactly is it less imperialist to decide to support the more reactionary, patriarchal, and inhumane aspects of a culture rather than helping to amplify the voice of the victims?"

Exactly. I can understand supporting someone who's oppressed...but supporting him or her oppressing other people while he or she's at it is no act of liberation.

@ linzeyinfynity

Quote : Why does one wish to have reassignment surgery? Why does the world make one feel like s/he would need to? How does this differ from other bodily procedures i.e., breast implants, breast reductions, liposuction, tattooing, piercing, s/m, self-mutilation, eating disorders, and so on.

I am interested to hear any ideas anyone would like to throw out there/respond to...

I recently wrote about my own experience of this here

As the partner of a trans woman, I'd like to respond to the quote above.

The difference between transgender surgeries (genital reassignment surgery for MtFs; chest reconstruction for FtMs) and any form of mutilation is not simply that it's "voluntary." Transsexualism is quite literally a conflict between body and brain. Your brain contains an internal "body map" that tells it what parts it's supposed to have: two legs, two arms, etc. This is why people who get their legs blown off in wars suffer "phantom pains" in limbs they no longer have. In trans women, the brain, including the "body map," fails to masculinize in the womb, probably due either to abnormal hormone levels or a fetal resistance to testosterone. It is a neurological intersex condition.

My girlfriend and women like her are freaked out by their genitalia because it is not on their body map. Similarly, trans men's breasts are not on their body map. And what she does have on her body map-- a vagina-- isn't there yet.

Self-mutilation and eating disorders are symptoms of mental illness. Being transgender is not a mental illness. It is not a body image problem. It is a neurological intersex condition-- quite literally a brain of one sex trapped in the body of another.

I ask the poster (assuming she's female): how would you feel if you didn't have a vagina? Would you be happy with a penis and testes? (This is not meant to be an abstract question. Please apply it to yourself personally.)

Is everything he writes asinine and offensive? Why is he even writing this column because he clearly doesn't understand the subjects he's required to discuss.

ELISE: "And this is precisely where a lot of purportedly "multiculturalist" arguments begin to show signs of dry rot. How exactly is it less imperialist to decide to support the more reactionary, patriarchal, and inhumane aspects of a culture rather than helping to amplify the voice of the victims?"

Wow, that is a really good way to frame it.

Does Saletan actually think there are women out there who would want to undergo female genital mutilation (as it is traditionally defined)? Given what's actually involved, that seems kinda far-fetched. Oh, and offensive-- I mean, it really tends to trivialize the cutting off of one's external genitalia. Yuck.

linzey>it may help to question consent. Why does one wish to have reassignment surgery? Why does the world make one feel like s/he would need to? How does this differ from other bodily procedures ..?

My girlfriend and women like her are freaked out by their genitalia because it is not on their body map. Similarly, trans men's breasts are not on their body map. And what she does have on her body map-- a vagina-- isn't there yet.

Speaking as a trans woman, we don't really know this is the case, any more than AGP or "Harry Benjamins' Syndrome" or any other unproven speculation. For some reason, a lot of people have a hard time accepting that we don't always need to know the cause of the problem to know how to fix it.

- don't know what happened to the rest of my comment-
Seems to me that there's some parts of gender that are mental, and fairly unchangeable in individuals, and parts that are socially constructed. The need of trans women to have genitals consistent with their gender is probably of the first kind.
while things like hairstyle or clothes would be in the second. Genitals is not all, either - I've spent a LOT of money, and many hours of "discomfort" on laser and electro beard removal. That seems to me to be in the first category too - although you could say that the social treatment of "bearded ladies" has something to do with it.

- don't know what happened to the rest of my comment-
Seems to me that there's some parts of gender that are mental, and fairly unchangeable in individuals, and parts that are socially constructed. The need of trans women to have genitals consistent with their gender is probably of the first kind.
while things like hairstyle or clothes would be in the second. Genitals is not all, either - I've spent a LOT of money, and many hours of "discomfort" on laser and electro beard removal. That seems to me to be in the first category too - although you could say that the social treatment of "bearded ladies" has something to do with it.

I wouldn't necessarily classify self-mutilation and eating disorders (specifically in women) as "mental illness" anymore than I would classify transgenderism as such. I think EDs and self harm are clear symptoms of the patriarchy, speaking as a surivior of both. I don't deny that there are organic/biological components to these behaviors, but I doubt they would be expressed the same way in the context of a social climate that was more woman-friendly. I think the environment triggers such things.

Also, I have heard trans people frame their experiences in many different ways other than neurological conditions that must be "fixed." Some of my trans friends resent the idea that their lives are pathologized and that something "went wrong" in their development so to speak. I realize there are many trans people who wish they had been born with different anatomy, but I know others who take a more celebratory approach and seem to enjoy gender-bending and trangressing/subverting gender boundaries. (Note I am NOT saying one of these perspectives is better/more accurate than the other, but I'm not sure it is fair to ignore the folks who understand themeselves differently). Personally, as a lesbian, I hate when experts and activists insist there is one true cause and explanation for homosexuality...because my experience doesn't match with what is usually proposed.

"Seems to me that there's some parts of gender that are mental, and fairly unchangeable in individuals, and parts that are socially constructed. The need of trans women to have genitals consistent with their gender is probably of the first kind.
while things like hairstyle or clothes would be in the second. Genitals is not all, either - I've spent a LOT of money, and many hours of 'discomfort' on laser and electro beard removal. That seems to me to be in the first category too - although you could say that the social treatment of 'bearded ladies' has something to do with it."

Given how many non-trans women and girls have inherited beards and moustaches from our mothers, and how much pressure we face to not only remove the hair but hide the fact that we grew it in the first place, at first hair removal seemed to be in the second category to me.

OTOH, that's also a matter of ethnicity as well as gender. Maybe whether it's in the first or second category depends on whether you're in an ethnic group in which female facial hair is more or less common?

"non-trans women and girls have inherited beards and moustaches from our mothers, ...social"...
The most common cause for beards in non trans women is polycystic ovary syndrome. This usually results in much finer hair than a testosterone driven beard.
I don't dispute there's social pressure not to have facial hair as a woman, but I'm not talking about fuzz. The social pressure not to have stubble as a trans woman is literally life threatening - not many non-trans women face that kind of social pressure.
Anyway, I hated it. Whatever anyone else thought, having hair or stubble on my face just felt awful. Especially as , once the hormones kick in, the facial skin gets soft, so keeping stubble is like being continually rasped by sandpaper.

"The most common cause for beards in non trans women is polycystic ovary syndrome."

Another common cause is ethnicity. My facial hair started years before my PCOS did, because I'm part Iranian. It's also more common among other Middle Easterners, South Asians, Latinas, etc.

"This usually results in much finer hair than a testosterone driven beard.
I don't dispute there's social pressure not to have facial hair as a woman, but I'm not talking about fuzz."

...and what I ripped out of my face earlier this morning was closer to coconut fuzz than to peach fuzz.

"The social pressure not to have stubble as a trans woman is literally life threatening - not many non-trans women face that kind of social pressure."

Sorry, I should have been more clear! I wasn't trying to dismiss the threats on your life or claim that the "bearded lady" bullying I suffered was that bad too!

I was thinking more of your statement "The need of trans women to have genitals consistent with their gender is probably of the first kind.
while things like hairstyle or clothes would be in the second." For a lot of non-trans women and girls, having a hairless face is closer to wearing a "feminine" hairstyle or outfit than it is to having female genitals. I was born with my vagina and clitoris, but my wearing a skirt or not wearing a beard requires actually doing something.

>>I wouldn't necessarily classify self-mutilation and eating disorders (specifically in women) as "mental illness" anymore than I would classify transgenderism as such.

YES!
I completely agree with you. I do not see one as more empowering than the other. I do not think that self-mutilation is any more harmful than sadomasochism. It just so happens that all the literature written on self-mutilation is how to prevent it, rather than exploring why it exists in the first place. There is no focus on the healing part, the part that helps people cope.

As for the question posed to me, how would I feel w/out a vagina? I would feel empty, sad and resentful and disgusted with myself, to be quite honest with you *BUT* I also realize that I would feel this way, given the construction as a woman that I was born as and continue to live as to do this day. This gendered construction has feminized me in a masculinist world, and I have empowered myself (or attempted to) through embracing my womanhood. It is this feminist understanding and self-identification that has allowed me to love my vagina in a world that tells me to hate it and myself because I have it. If I had not had this experience as a woman, I would not learn to associate my bodily parts with such feeling. So, in short, without a vagina, I *think* I would feel empty/dirty, etc., but I don't know how I would feel bc I've only lived as a woman identfied woman with a vagina, so all my notions of identity are based on that--no matter how hard I try and step away from it. The construction is there.

Thanks for you all's comments...they're interesting, informative and enlightening. I think what I want to reiterate is that, in going into certain countries and "fixing" a problem such as FGM, the west/us/(myself included) often forget that their gender system is not our gender system, so their patriarchy is not the same is our patriarchy and requires different tools/methods and language. Does that make sense?

>>I wouldn't necessarily classify self-mutilation and eating disorders (specifically in women) as "mental illness" anymore than I would classify transgenderism as such.

YES!
I completely agree with you. I do not see one as more empowering than the other. I do not think that self-mutilation is any more harmful than sadomasochism. It just so happens that all the literature written on self-mutilation is how to prevent it, rather than exploring why it exists in the first place. There is no focus on the healing part, the part that helps people cope.

As for the question posed to me, how would I feel w/out a vagina? I would feel empty, sad and resentful and disgusted with myself, to be quite honest with you *BUT* I also realize that I would feel this way, given the construction as a woman that I was born as and continue to live as to do this day. This gendered construction has feminized me in a masculinist world, and I have empowered myself (or attempted to) through embracing my womanhood. It is this feminist understanding and self-identification that has allowed me to love my vagina in a world that tells me to hate it and myself because I have it. If I had not had this experience as a woman, I would not learn to associate my bodily parts with such feeling. So, in short, without a vagina, I *think* I would feel empty/dirty, etc., but I don't know how I would feel bc I've only lived as a woman identfied woman with a vagina, so all my notions of identity are based on that--no matter how hard I try and step away from it. The construction is there.

Thanks for you all's comments...they're interesting, informative and enlightening. I think what I want to reiterate is that, in going into certain countries and "fixing" a problem such as FGM, the west/us/(myself included) often forget that their gender system is not our gender system, so their patriarchy is not the same is our patriarchy and requires different tools/methods and language. Does that make sense?

The social pressure not to have stubble as a trans woman is literally life threatening - not many non-trans women face that kind of social pressure.

I'm a trans woman, and I am struggling with this issue. Quite frankly, I like facial hair on women, including myself, and I do resent how women are so heavily socialized into removing every trace of facial hair. I've had some laser hair removal on my face, but I am putting off further treatments and experimenting with growing out the remnants of my goatee (during the weekend - don't want to confuse coworkers at this point). But I'm also aware of how risky this is to my safety. I'm rather on the femme side, so when I "gender-fuck" by growing out my beard and wearing a skirt, that is when I am in greatest danger of being verbally or physically assaulted. (I put scare quotes around "gender-fuck" b/c I really would like to just be able to do this without having it be so "transgressive")

RE the whole "female brain trapped in a male body" bit - I don't feel like my brain is trapped in anything. Even though my body was assigned male by others, I don't see it that way. I feel I was born with a female body that was exposed to high levels of testosterone. That being said, I do intend on getting GRS when I can afford to do so. It's not a matter of correcting a birth defect - there's nothing defective about my body - but a matter of being more comfortable in the only body I have.

I do not think that self-mutilation is any more harmful than sadomasochism ... There is no focus on the healing part, the part that helps people cope.

I have cut myself (only once). It saved my life. Of all the people that I've talked to about this, only one understood this aspect - when I told her, she simply asked "Did it help?" (Note that I am not endorsing cutting as a coping mechanism for anybody else, only stating what cutting myself did for me.)