Critiquing Whipping Girl [controversial]
Sep. 6th, 2009 10:11 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
steepholm.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
transWhen I first read Julia Serano's Whipping Girl a year or so ago I, like many people, was blown away. It seemed - still seems - to be saying all kinds of things about trans issues that no one else was saying that clearly, and creating a new vocabulary at the same time. How did we live all those years without "oppositional sexism"?
In other words, I was very impressed. And I was pleased to see other people in this community and others speaking highly of it too. At the same time, I was surprised there hadn't been more critical discussion of its many ideas, because even I felt in a few places that some of its contentions were at least debatable or in need of development (the concept of subconscious sex, for example), and when a book begins to be mentioned as if it were holy writ I get a little uncomfortable. (Of course, maybe there were all kinds of discussions happening that I wasn't aware of, but there you go.)
If anyone else feels the same, may I recommend the series of posts by aqueertheory that have been going up at Below the Belt over the last few weeks? They're here: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV. They present a sympathetic critique, and articulate a few problems with Serano's ideas (though none fatal, I'd say) that had been lurking at the back of my own mind. Mostly, though, I think it's an excellent chance to move the discussion on from Serano's own landmark book.
In other words, I was very impressed. And I was pleased to see other people in this community and others speaking highly of it too. At the same time, I was surprised there hadn't been more critical discussion of its many ideas, because even I felt in a few places that some of its contentions were at least debatable or in need of development (the concept of subconscious sex, for example), and when a book begins to be mentioned as if it were holy writ I get a little uncomfortable. (Of course, maybe there were all kinds of discussions happening that I wasn't aware of, but there you go.)
If anyone else feels the same, may I recommend the series of posts by aqueertheory that have been going up at Below the Belt over the last few weeks? They're here: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV. They present a sympathetic critique, and articulate a few problems with Serano's ideas (though none fatal, I'd say) that had been lurking at the back of my own mind. Mostly, though, I think it's an excellent chance to move the discussion on from Serano's own landmark book.