Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2016 3:19:45 GMT 8
My point is that, tho priveledge is perhaps a poor choice of words. . .
Kira, what I'm saying here is that "privilege" isn't just a poor choice of words. It totally falsifies the situation.
We can't say that passing priveledge doesn't exist, it does, I know, I have it,
No one is denying that a passing transperson has things easier than a non-passing one. You know it, I know it, we all know it. But it isn't a "privilege". For this reason:
According to the definition given of why passing priveledge doesn't exist (non removal of fundamental rights isn't a priveledge, rather it's a nothing) then, as being able to vote, isn't a privilege, it's a right.
Exactly: being able to vote isn't a privilege. It's a right. With this proviso: if Group A is exercising the right while preventing Group B from doing so, then Group A is creating and enjoying a privilege.
Now, not being harassed isn't a privilege. It's a right. With this proviso: if Group A is free from harassment while making sure that Group B is constantly suffering it, then Group A is creating and enjoying a privilege. So why aren't passing transpeople enjoying a privilege? Because they're not Group A. Group A is trans-hating cispeople who harass Group B, non-passing transpeople. Passing transpeople are Group C, those who are not being harassed but did not create the system whereby Group B is constantly being harassed.
To say that Group C is enjoying a privilege is false because they did not create that privilege and neither do they approve of Group A enjoying it at Group B's expense. Group C would be more than happy for Group A's privilege to disappear.
Using this term "privilege" is lumping Group C in with Group A, when the reality is that Group A would be more than happy to lump Group C in with Group B, which is precisely what they do when they succeed in identifying a member of Group C. Which is what's happened to me. When somebody identified me, they were more than happy to treat me as one more tranny.
There is a label for it, it might be poorly labelled but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yes, nobody's denying it: passing transpeople have things easier than non-passing transpeople. But the term "privilege" points the finger at the wrong people. It points the finger at passing transpeople who did not create the privilege and who don't support it.
That's why I suggested the term "transpeople at risk". Non-passing transpeople are much more at risk than passing ones. But who creates that risk? Trans-hating cispeople. Choose a term that points the finger at the guilty party. The term "transpeople at risk" acknowledges that some transpeople are more at risk than others. (When we apply this term to non-passing transpeople, we know who we're talking about.) But the term also leads us to ask, Who are they at risk from? Not from passing transpeople.
Kira, if you generally pass, great. So do I. But there's no point in trying to feel guilty about crimes we haven't committed. Blame the guilty, acquit the innocent. Furthermore, it's not as if trans-hating cispeople didn't do some serious damage to my life. Just because they're not regularly beating me up now doesn't mean I couldn't lay a few charges against them. Tell me, Kira, have you come out of it unscathed? If not, look to the guilty, not yourself.
You're not doing anything wrong by not getting beaten up regularly. You don't owe it to other transpeople to take your fair share of beatings. What you might feel you owe them is helping to end this system whereby they are so routinely being harassed. I feel we do that by being out, living our lives--and above all, by behaving ourselves, by showing cispeople that we too are decent people who don't deserve to be harassed. None of us does--and it doesn't matter what somebody looks like. If it did, then we could all go around beating up ugly and overweight cispeople.