Sunday, November 1, 2009

Julie Bindel still doesn't understand what Human Rights actually means

Julie Bindel once again rails against the Transgender community with an argument that once again clings to some studies while ignoring the existence of others and which also is a human rights EPIC FAIL.

The full article is here:

But the key error is the same one I tried to explain to her on facebook and reiterated here on this blogpost

I have no idea if she's reading the comments on the article page but my own there (qued for mod approval at the moment i type this) is as follows:
Hi again Julie. As i explained before and available here: your view is in places contrary to basic human rights principles. Most notable Bodily Autonomy, the principle that gives people the right to say no to sex, to say no to state-forced surgery, the right to contraception and to terminate pregnancy. You use the term human rights but you seem confused about the key concepts of human rights. As arguing that transgender people should be able to choose surgery or no surgery is valid, but your criticism of those who choose it is
invalid as its contrary to the human right of bodily autonomy. I suggest you
read this also I suggest you look into the philosophical foundations of what makes human rights human rights then review your opinions to remove the hypocritical inconsistency.

Now it's a pretty simple concept. And it's a fundamental human rights principle. The basis in fact for many feminist womens rights fights to assert this fundamental universal human right. It's astonishing to imagine that Julie could go through her career without once encountering this principle or that she would knowingly attack the right that is so vital to women and children the world over. Only a few possible explanations come to mind.

* She may think that for some reason Transsexuals are an exception to Universal Human Rights. Making her use of the term human rights and claims to advocating them a knowing lie or unknowing falsehood.

* She may have a Utilitarian view that the possible effect on Cissexual and Cisgender women are more important that the universal human rights of Transgender and Transsexual people even though the same argument would invalidate the womens rights movement because of its effects on men in the past. Making her use of the term human rights and claims to advocating them a knowing lie or unknowing falsehood.

* She may knowingly be using the term human rights in full understanding of the hypocracy of arguing against the human rights of others and falsely claiming the human rights of women and children are effected by the equal rights of all people including transgender and transsexual people.

Either way a clear and unavoidable hypocracy exists. Bodily autonomy is a Universal Human Right. A key concept upon which Womens Rights and Childrens Rights depend. And it means that people MUST have the right to CHOOSE SRS and they MUST have the right to DECLINE SRS without any coercion of any sort including needing SRS to be recognised as a woman or man or to avoid laws and beaureaucratic processes that discriminate based on actual or perceived sex or gender identity or expression.

Thats what Human Rights demand. It's what Bodily Autonomy, Freedom of Expression, Equality, Freedom From Disscrimination, Freedom Of Self-Identification and more all require.

Thats what Human Rights means Julie. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Your incorrect use of it in your article is hypocracy as it refutes your arguments.


Alissia Megan Rose-Pait said...

Well written. Unfortunately those who follow her path do not pay attention to such details as human right o equality. The old adage holds, everyone is equal, I'm just more equal than everyone else. I'm fairly sure she subscribes to this.

On the flip side this can be said of a lot of our so called "community". Ciswomen look down on transwomen (see Womyn festivals). Gay muscle boys look down on twinks, gay men belittle lesbians. Lesbians belittle transmen and women. And even in the transwomen community you have the divisions of pre/post-op and attraction to men vs attraction to women.

Perhaps if all of us (women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans+/-) all stopped fighting for who is going to be top of the dung heap and started actually working together, liking and helping each other, we could actually leave the dung heap behind.

I just don't see it happening. \

timberwraith said...

Yes, it's ironic how the right to bodily autonomy is important to both feminist issues and transgender issues. Funny how that works.

I love how you draw the underlying logic out these issues. Alas, I suspect that Ms. Bindel isn't terribly concerned about logic or consistency of thought. Her words ride upon fear and hatred. Is this any surprise? Logic and prejudice make poor bedfellows.

Battybattybats said...

Well it looks like my comment did get published..

following one from Julie herself concentrating solely on the claim to have walked past the threatening mob of protestors whereas the comments from protestors and the protests organiser say she did not. Julie claims to have witnesses of this from Stonewall and two other nominees.. Natacha counterclaims to have video footage of the protestors being peaceful and behind a cordoned off area. And I'd expect the police themselves could be questioned too.

If they are going to fight on that I'd like to see both parties produce their evidence. Video footage could be able to clear things up pretty solidly I would expect.

But it's rather a derail if this is the only criticism Julie is willing to respond to really isn't it?

Hopefully she sees my post which follows Natachas after Julies. Hopefully the police and footage can answer the accusation of protestors behaviour conclusively, and I can certainly see how the organiser and other protestors would feel defamed by Julies accusation if untrue.

And theres a facebook group in response to her latest article for those interested.