Oh goodie. In addition to the Teresa Reeves "Declaration of Transsexual Independence," I found another one online, the "TS-Specific Declaration of Independence" written by Courtney Holder. I don't know which precedes the other. This one brings up some of the same points, but in shorter format. I might as well take a whack at this one as well. Here you go. This time, my added clarifications are in blue:
To: LGBT Community, TG Community, human rights groups, the general public
TS-Specific Declaration of Independence
We are a community comprised of people who were born
in bodies that do not match our sense of gender and
who wish to correct this physical condition and get
on with life, with the opportunity to assimilate into
the mainstream and even hide the condition if we so
desire (we reserve the right to erase our own identity and history).
We expect and even demand all the same
treatment, rights, expectations, and protections as
genetic born members of whatever gender we claim as
our own (and we want to achieve these "gender" rights outside any affiliation with any group that shares our general gender incongruity).
We assert the right to form a community comprised
of individuals who support the concept of two
genders despite having this condition (in other words, even though our existence refutes the strict "gender" binary, we choose to deny our own uniqueness in favor of conforming to a dying paradigm). We do not
wish to be connected with individuals who support
more than two genders, individuals who don't
believe in gender, nor those who support infinite
shades of gender (we also believe in the dualism of good/evil, black/white, up/down, and a flat-earth). Nor do we wish to be connected
with movements of individuals whose main purpose
is to change social and legal attitudes towards
sexual orientation (homosexuality is an abomination). We maintain that we have a
medical condition that LGBT's and TG's do not have (and reserve the right to redefine the word "transgender" in this manner so that it specifically excludes anyone who wants or needs what now is termed "Gender Reassignment Surgery" and/or its medical precursors).
We maintain that our condition is medical and is not
anyway connected with any sexual practices, and it
hurts us when we are slandered in such a manner (heaven forbid that anyone get the idea that "transsexual" has anything whatsoever to do with "sex").
This declaration lends itself to support the
following rights:
1. The right to a name, label, or title that is
uniquely ours, and ours alone (i.e. "transsexual").
2. Freedom of association and dissociation, and
the right to have our own community of only
fully transitioning TSs who have or want SRS (i.e. " transsexual separatists" as defined strictly by a vague surgical criteria, which, sorry, pretty much eliminates most F-t-Ms, and social passability, which, sorry, pretty much eliminates you 6'-4" "ladies" because you are not going to be able to erase your history and true identity, and also must exclude the waffling pre-ops who don't want surgery enough to get it done. Buh-bye, losers).
3. The freedom to gain separation from the LGBT and
TG communities and to maintain such (because such people make us mad by not buying fully into our self-delusion of being just regular men and women... except for this little birth defect and our life history up to the time we chose to seriously seek the surgical solution).
4. The right to fight for our rights alone, without
any outside interference or "help," and the
right to be to be the only ones speaking for us (because only we can properly articulate the selfish inaccuracy and depth of delusion of our arguments).
5. The right to privacy and secrecy if we so desire (because our most fervent desire is to trade one incongruency for another).
6. The right not to be compared to LGBT or
transgendered individuals (because we hate unity, equality, liberty, diversity and community... well, except the dreamy community of femininity which we demand to join without any guff from anyone, including those other females... you know the biological ones.).
7. The right to separate care, separate programs,
and separate research studies from transgendered
and/or homosexual persons (because we might get cooties from the transgenders and transvestites and homos, and deserve our own specifically tailored medical, psychological and social rights and programs and attention, which already exist and are continuing to grow and proliferate largely as a result of our being part of the LGBT community, a truth we reserve the right to add to all the other facts we wish to ignore).
8. The right to expect honesty and truth in
labeling from those who claim to be our allies (in other words, you are either with us or with the terrorists. If you don't buy into our delusion, you are not our friend).
9. The right for MtF TSs to marry males, and FtM
TSs to marry females, and for such marriages to
be considered heterosexual marriages and be
performed in accordance with existing laws (like those prohibiting same sex marriage, which is a perversion of sexuality, not that we "transsexuals" ever think about sex; we just want to be part of normal, nice society, not the world of you sexual, or gender, or whatever, deviants).
10. The right to have all legal documents have the
gender which we believe ourselves to be, and for
the documents to be fully honored by all parts
of the government, medical establishment, legal
profession, employers, and the insurance field (which, admittedly, the "transgender" political effort has succeeded in advancing, but which we now wish to usurp and commandeer, expecting all of those previously involved in that effort to abdicate and repudiate the term "transgender" and swear an oath of allegiance to the "transsexual" creed, or to remove themselves from any association, alliance or connectedness to said movement).
11. The right to do all things that those who are
members of the gender which we declare ourselves
to be are allowed to do, without double standards,
exceptions, or different expectations (well, except, hee-hee, to be able fulfill the biological mandate of that "gender").
12. The right to hold any religious, political or
moral views, and to assemble with like-minded
persons. We shall have the right to practice our
beliefs without our gender or the legitimacy
of our medical condition called into question.
Implied in this is the freedom from peer
pressure to attempt to force conformity in any
of these areas (because, after all, we don't like having our black/white vision of the world challenged by the "transgender" rainbow. We resent and reject their attempt to force us to conform to nonconformity of societal norms).
13. The right to be seen as members of our correct
gender who have/had a physical birth defect, not
as members of the wrong gender becoming members
of the right gender. Eg., MtFs are women born with
a physical birth defect, not men becoming women (and in this belief we demand that no one, including ourselves, shall examine our biological structure or our life history for scientific and cultural evidence of the opposite reality).
14. The right to not be seen as CD/TV/TG persons who
become TSs. TSs are that way from early in life
and never are CD/TV/TG. CDism is a chosen
behavior of those born with a male identity. MtF
TSs are women born with a birth defect who choose
to correct it. CD/TV/TG are labels for different
types of crossdressing men, and men can never
become women, ever. MtF TSs are born with a
female identity but forced to pretend to be
boys/men. MtF CD/TV/TG persons always have the
identity/soul of men dispite how they may dress or
pretend, and they can never jump categories to
TS. A TS who says they "used to be a crossdresser"
is either lying, confused, or not a TS. TSs are
born as TSs and CDing men remain CDing men. There
is no category jumping (because as we all know all things in the universe are as God created them and never change. So, to clarify, a "transsexual" is born and must defiantly struggle against their subjugation, bondage and birth defect from Day One, NEVER losing their fierce resentment for their birth defect, NEVER freely acknowledging their status as the wrongly assigned gender, NEVER indulging in the pleasures and privilege of that wrong gender, NEVER fulfilling ANY of the biological mandates of that wrong gender lest it be said, FOREVER, that they willingly and, perhaps, happily, went along with the wrong gender for some time or some experiences, including - TRAITOROUSLY - having children, which would only serve to CONFIRM and CEMENT their acquiescence and allegiance to the wrong gender. Biological XY persons with penises acting as men ARE men. But "men cannot become women", and therefore those who have ever, for a single second in their life, failed their "real" gender identity, are forever disqualified from calling themselves "transsexual" and cannot become women, because "there is no category jumping").
15. The right to reject pity. We are not inferior to
other women or men (and we reserve the rights of normal women and men to feel superior to deviants like transvestites, transgenders and homos).
16. The right not to be connected with any sexual
practices, nor be lumped in with any group that
promotes such things (because, as dualists, we reject the full range of sexuality diversity within nature and the human family, in favor of a black/white, good/evil and wholly conformist world, and because we fully recognize our own and society's squeamishly deranged obsession with sex, and therefore seek to distance ourselves and our movement from the subject by calling ourselves "transsexuals").
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Petition to LGBT Community, TG Community, human rights groups, the general public was created by Members of the TS-Specific Community and written by Courtney Holder (ts_research@yahoo.com). This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service.
NOTES:
I find it interesting that nowhere in Courtney's declaration is the word "transsexual" actually used. Huh? She happily uses the initials "TS" repeatedly, which we all know stands for "transsexual," but she can't quite bring herself to utter the sex-linked term, even while demanding the right to a name, label or title of their own. No label is provided other than "TS." What does this mean? Could be that she innately recognizes that "transsexual" is a loaded term, full of old baggage and sexual connotation. Courtney tries to shoo that connotation away when she says that her group "is not anyway connected with any sexual practices," but of course, that simply will not fly with a word like "transsexual." If you don't want sexual practices evoked by a label, it better not have the word "sexual" embedded in it.
Another strange thing is how many times Courtney uses the term "gender" as opposed to "sex." "Gender" is mentioned 14 times. "Sex" is mentioned just five times, and four of those are in reference to homosexuality, which this particular "transsexual" explicitly rejects (I do note here that Teresa Reeves, as an aspiring lesbian, may not agree with Courtney's interpretation). So, the concept of "gender" dominates this document, sex is pushed aside as nothing particularly relevant, yet they want to separate themselves, "transsexuals," from "transgenders." They maintain that their gender has never changed, but this is usually, clearly, not the case. The vast majority of post-op "transsexuals" have a long history of living in the gender that aligns with their sexual biology. Many even produced children, in full utilization of that biology. By transforming their lives to live as the opposite gender, they are very definitely transgender. What any human is unable to do is to change their full sexual biology. One hundred trillion cells with chromosomes cannot be changed, nor can the fundamental purpose of sexual apparatus: reproduction. Yes, certain aspects of sexual apparatus can be modified, but that does not mean that the underlying sex of that individual has in any major way been altered. No F-t-M can biologically father a child, and no M-t-F can have a baby, and this is the very meaning of sexuality. Through hormones and surgery and other programs, an individual with a gender dichotomy is able to greatly relieve the mind/body incongruency, which is great, but it's not a sex change.
A conservative religious and political bent is easily discernible in this declaration. The political definition of conservatism is the predilection to conserve traditional socioeconomic hierarchies and institutions. Here Courtney is solidly conservative in defending traditional man/woman, heterosexual, Christian and Republican, orientations. These "transsexuals" adore the gender binary, and have convinced themselves that it is possible for them to entirely cross over to the other side. Alas, as she goes on to describe the process of how one is born "transsexual," followed by a disjointed set of restrictive prerequisites that astonishingly few people of transgender experience actually qualify to join the club. Perhaps that is why the number of people who had signed her online declaration on the day I visited her site is... zero.
What this declaration of rights really amounts to is a demand to be given license to bamboozle themselves and the rest of society. They start with a delusion: that there is a gender duality. There is not. There is a vast spectrum of masculine/feminine potentiality, with possibly as many genders as there are people, and each person should have the liberty to create - and change whenever they want - that identity. Then they add two more delusions: that they can wholly and completely cross the gender divide... by changing their sex. No and no. Probably no single woman or man who ever lived experienced precisely the same perceptions of their woman-ness or man-ness, but there are certainly commonalities to their experience based entirely upon their biology and history. It is the height of hubris for someone who comes from an entirely different biological and historical source to presume to claim that they have the ability, or the right, to take some hormones, have a nip/tuck, close their eyes, click their ruby slippers, make that leap of faith, and all of a sudden they awaken just like "any other woman" (as Teresa Reeves stated it). It adds up to a triple delusion that the "transsexual separatists" expect us all to honor and respect.
Sorry, I, as a post-op TRANSGENDER NOT TRANSSEXUAL PERSON, refuse to go along with your stupidity and selfishness. Courtney, you actually are exactly right: "there is no category jumping" when it comes to sexuality. You weren't born transsexual because there is no such thing. The term is inaccurate and obsolete. But you were probably born transgender, or you became that somewhere along the way. And you will stay transgender all your life, though you are free to pick and choose where you feel most comfortable upon the gender spectrum. You don't have to tell everyone about your history; you can be a "woman" as you move through culture, but you have to be honest with yourself, your family and your close friends. You will never be just like any other woman because you will never have their biology or history. You do have your own special biology and history, and a wondrous life story. The transgender journey is sacred. Honor it. By running away from it you disrespect it. You are a transwoman... different from a transman, a gender queer person or a crossdresser, with special needs, but still part of the transgender family, just as a human is part of the primate family.
This "transsexual" position is based upon a raft of ignorance and ethical hollowness. Your belief flies against the facts of science itself, while your motive is to ever separate and divide from others, and from your own true self (which you are blind to see). The path to acceptance is not through division and usurpation of some fervently wished-for but false identity, but by joining your true essence with all of those who share some commonality and the allies who also believe in the cause. Your cause is a sure loser. Stop fighting so hard for the right to "hide," and to be something you will never be, in order to conform to people who will never fully accept you as what you are pretending to be. That's actually a pretty crazy way to think and live when there are so many people ready to accept you for who you really are.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
TRANSGENDER BORG VS. SEPARATISTS
I'm fairly new to the great Borg vs. Separatists crisis currently boiling within the transgender community. So I'm not at all certain of the totality of arguments put forth by either side of the equation. I'm wading my way through a few of the lengthy diatribes of some of the proponents of the dichotomous positions. I find the issue entertaining and quite informing of the breadth and depth of the transgender experience. I'm glad the discussion is taking place because it calls upon us to think deeply about who we are, where we come from and where we are going.
It is, however, important to keep in mind that the transgender population is a very young constituency, really only about 20 years old as a viable social and political movement. We're just now finding our footing and our voices. Everything is changing all around us: how other people think about us, and how we think about ourselves. And it's good. This is growth. This is evolution. This is progress. Yet, when things change, when new awareness and ideas come along, old ideas and old terms get shoved aside. Some people have a real problem with that.
By even using the term "transgender" in the way I have here already my position on the matter becomes instantly clear to those who are familiar with the arguments. For it seems that the term "transgender" as an "umbrella" term for just about anyone - including casual crossdressers - who transits or transgresses or transforms along the great gender divide sticks in the craw of those individuals who consider themselves serious "sex changers." They reject the word "transgender" for themselves, and prefer the alternative term "transsexual," which defines and separates them from all other wannabes. So these are the separatists.
The "Borg" is the transgender collective or "LGBT Dictatorship" who are intent upon forcing the separatists, against their will, to join them under the despised and unrecognized umbrella.
It is, however, important to keep in mind that the transgender population is a very young constituency, really only about 20 years old as a viable social and political movement. We're just now finding our footing and our voices. Everything is changing all around us: how other people think about us, and how we think about ourselves. And it's good. This is growth. This is evolution. This is progress. Yet, when things change, when new awareness and ideas come along, old ideas and old terms get shoved aside. Some people have a real problem with that.
By even using the term "transgender" in the way I have here already my position on the matter becomes instantly clear to those who are familiar with the arguments. For it seems that the term "transgender" as an "umbrella" term for just about anyone - including casual crossdressers - who transits or transgresses or transforms along the great gender divide sticks in the craw of those individuals who consider themselves serious "sex changers." They reject the word "transgender" for themselves, and prefer the alternative term "transsexual," which defines and separates them from all other wannabes. So these are the separatists.
The "Borg" is the transgender collective or "LGBT Dictatorship" who are intent upon forcing the separatists, against their will, to join them under the despised and unrecognized umbrella.
I recently stumbled upon a manifesto, a "Declaration of Independence" of the separatists, apparently penned by Teresa Ellen Reeves, a Northwest resident, about a year ago. I found it fairly well written, at least grammatically, and quite illuminating as to the full gamut of the separatists' concerns. I thank Teresa for her contribution to my understanding. I refer you to this link for her full text: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150216872276837
I'd like to take this opportunity to comment on many of the principal points that she makes.
In this piece, Teresa declares "independence, secession and liberation" from both the transgender umbrella collective and the LGBT collective, which in her view have variously sought to erase the identities, silence the voices and render "transsexuals" invisible and powerless. She argues that those who have undergone a "sex" change are entirely different from those only engaged in some sort of "gender" bending or changing, and that this differentiation renders any type of commonality futile.
The first thing I'm going to do is to throw out the word "umbrella" and substitute the word "rainbow." Though well-meaning, "umbrella" is a clunky description, conjuring a huddled throng of possibly disparate individuals, whereas "rainbow" connotes a smooth continuum of incrementally different individuals who nevertheless are grounded in unique commonality. This metaphor is far closer to the truth of transgender reality.
Now let's examine the first paragraph of her declaration: "We, the transsexual people, hold these truths to be self evident. We are an independent and distinctly different people who were born of a mind in contrast with our physical bodies. We have a neurobiological imperative to seek a congruence of mind and body, and through our transition we relentlessly pursue the remedy and correction of our birth defect through hormonal and other therapies and sex reassignment and other surgeries."
Notice how she admits that this condition involves a "mind in contrast with our physical bodies" and a "neurobiological imperative to seek a congruence of mind and body." This portion of her statement could well apply to any person on the transgender rainbow continuum. Even crossdressers have "a mind in contrast" with their physical bodies, and "neurobiological imperative" to cross the gender divide, if only temporarily. So she has established a firm framework of transgender commonality... with a brain/body incongruency issue at its core. But then she immediately seeks to diminish that commonality by separating out the "transsexuals" as different because only they relentlessly pursue a remedy for their "birth defect" through hormones and surgery.
Now her definition of "transsexual" is set: one who is relentlessly pursuing a "sex" change. But when does this relentless pursuit begin? When does one become "transsexual?" Before birth? At birth? In childhood? Adolescence? Young adulthood? Middle age? The senior years? The answer, of course, is that it can begin at any time of life. So then, what is the person before they begin their relentless pursuit? Not a "transsexual" according to the declaration's definition. Then no one is innately "transsexual," but rather must have both the mind/body incongruency AND the wherewithal to begin the relentless pursuit. Those who will not or cannot make this commitment need not apply to the club. And what about those whose commitment waxes and wanes? While they are dutifully taking their hormones and having electrolysis, are they "transsexual," while if they cease to do this for awhile, they lose their membership? In other words, are all preoperative "transsexuals" probationary, subject to having their TS status revoked at the first sign of weakening? Meanwhile, Teresa makes it clear that once one is post-op, the "transsexual" definition can be dropped for good. According to Teresa, the post-op M-t-F "transsexual" is now a real woman. The only transsexual aspect remaining is their history (which now they must hide). So it would appear that the state of "transsexuality" is quixotic and temporary.
This is clearly quite messy and irrational.
Teresa imagines a great transgender and LGBT conspiracy against "transsexuals," those who have a "bona fide medical condition." These conspirators want to depathologize and normalize the transgender experience, and claim that gender variance is natural. To the separatists, this is an afront to their mindset. They fear that if gender identity can be all over the map, and people can come and go as they please upon the masculine-feminine scale, then perhaps medical solutions aren't really necessary.
Teresa explains: "Since 'sex' in their view is between the legs only and 'gender' between the ears, all that has to be done is convince transsexuals that they only have to change their concept of gender and role and that they should be content with their original birth sex. Meaning it is better to change your mind than your body and better to change gender rather than sex."
This leaves me scratching my head. I've been around the transgender community for over 30 years, and I've never heard anyone suggest such a thing. Perhaps in the bad, old days psychiatrists proposed such a solution. Today, maybe some fundamentalist Christian program offers such an ideology. But I have never perceived any transgender or LGBT conspiracy to encourage "transsexuals" to not transition or to discourage them from obtaining medical and psychological assistance through that transition. Quite the opposite is the current reality, with most transgender support groups filled with knowledgeable pre and post ops, happily detailing their experiences, and a medical system that has never been as large, varied, accessible and welcoming as now. The facts simply don't support the separatists' claim of wide-spread repression and discrimination; actually they have never had more opportunities and rights than they have garnered as an important part and parcel, indeed leaders, of the transgender community.
I just believe that Teresa and the separatists are confused about sex and gender. They seem to assume that everything gender-related is in the head, while everything physical is sexual. They cling to outdated terminology and conceptualizations of 40 years ago that were themselves based upon shoddy differentiation between gender and sexuality. Changing your sex is impossible for humans. Yes, you can add hormones, which will induce some physical and psychological changes; you can surgically alter your genitalia and other body parts. So you've changed some aspects of your biological sexual components, but you haven't changed your sex. To do that, you would have to transform your chromosomes in all 100 trillion of your cells, as well as your gamete-producing apparatus. That's what sex really is all about: reproduction. If you haven't changed that, you haven't changed sex.
Even after the "sex" change operation, you may not have even changed your sexual orientation in terms of which gender you prefer to be with. Only about 30 percent of post-op "transsexuals" change their sexual orientation. It would seem that Teresa is among those whose actual sexual orientation was not changed by her "sex change." As a man she was attracted to women. It was XY on XX sex. Now as a transwoman, she is attracted to women. It's still XY on XX. Chromosomally, she was heterosexual, and she is still heterosexual, because there really wasn't a "sex change." But from a gender standpoint, she was straight, and now she's a lesbian. It was masculine/feminine sex, now it's feminine/feminine sex. So she is transgender, not transsexual. She should embrace the mind/body equation that actually affirms her feminine gender identity, not fight against it while trying to square the circle of the biological equation that actually refutes her proclaimed sexuality.
Alas it seems sexuality is the end-all and be-all for the separatists. Yet it's an impossible dream. They must bend themselves into pretzels and redefine words to form some semblance of logic to defend their position.
Teresa says, "Today there have been oxymoronic constructions of words used as a substitute for sex reassignment surgery including gender "reassignment", "affirming" or "confirming" surgery. Oxymoronic because it is a sex change and not a gender change operation-- as surgery is performed on primary and secondary sex characteristics, and not on "gender" organs."
The terms she describes as oxymoronic are actually just a bit clumsy, but not inaccurate. "Sex reassignment" or "sex change" are inaccurate. The surgery itself can be construed as a "reassignment" by oneself, or as some kind of official cultural initiation, graduation or correction. The terms "gender affirmation" and " gender confirmation" were coined as potential replacements for "reassignment," and may be more accurate, but haven't really caught on yet. This demonstrates the flux that our language is in as we evolve as a community.
The "transsexuals" are simply wrong in asserting that altering the sexual organs equates to a sex change. Altering primary or secondary sex characteristics still does not undo underlying sexual biology.
What is very possible is gender change. And gender is what it's important anyway, not sex. Gender is how you self identify and how you present yourself to society... at all times. Sexuality is about fucking... and from a genetic standpoint, reproducing. If it doesn't involve fucking or reproducing then sexuality doesn't actually have a lot to do with it.
Teresa vigorously disagrees (we can tell because she is shouting): "I AM NOT A TRANSGENDERSEXUAL! ...NO MATTER WHAT MY PHYSICAL, GENETIC & BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES ARE, THEY DO NOT MAKE ME SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN, SOMETHING "OTHER" THAN A WOMAN. I DID TRANSITION TO FEMALE SEXUALITY- AND IT IS MY SEXUALITY-- AND WHAT MAKES YOU THINK MY FANTASIES AND BEHAVIOR IS DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER WOMAN?"
She just doesn't get it. She's not going to win any friends among genetic women by claiming that she is just like "any other woman." That's just bullshit. She has no idea what it is like to be a genetic woman. That's a dishonest, ignorant and ignoble insult to individuals who were born female, grew up little girls, felt the subjugation and discrimination of male privilege and patriarchy every day of their lives, experienced the hassle and pain of menstruation every month starting around age 11 or 12, and lived in a state of constant vulnerability and disadvantage in a "man's world" without any relief all their lives, and also experienced the authentic magic of the holistic biological female self. Teresa is very definitely something different from this, and certainly not just "any other woman."
She continues: "We terminate our membership in our sex of birth and end our ability to function in that sexuality and instead have enabled our sexuality as the sex we have transitioned to. 'Sexual Identity' is whether you agree or disagree that you are a member of the assigned sex and whether or not you accept the sexuality and the sexual and reproductive role of that sex."
Teresa is so factually off base here that the mind boggles. Only if you change the words "sex" and "sexuality" to "gender" does this statement not grate like fingernails against the biological blackboard, and even that falls apart when she brings in the concept of "reproductive role." Reproductive role? You really want to go there, Teresa? Female sexuality is all about producing large gametes, eggs. Once Teresa is able to produce large gametes, then we'll talk about her "female sexuality."
So we can't change sex, and we can't steal the history, thought process and feelings of the opposite sex. But we can do the next best thing. We can change gender, as much or as little as we want to, and start building our own catalogue of experiences and history. We can wear the clothes of the other gender. We can style our hair like the other gender. We can wear the accessories of the other gender. We can gravitate toward the same interests as the other gender. We can learn to walk and talk like the other gender. We can learn to think somewhat like the other gender. We can get jobs as the other gender. Other people will treat us as the other gender. Sometimes, if we are good enough at all of this, most people will never even know we were not always of this gender!
None of this has anything to do with sexuality. But there's good news on that front as well. If we want to, through hormones and surgery and other methods, we can approximate the sexual characteristics of the other gender, to the point of even doing the sex act. We haven't completely changed our sexual biology, but we have to the extent we can copulate, or "have sex," in our new gender, perhaps with a new partner, or with the same old partner. Now that is really great for those who want it. And what happens is that the mind, the seat of gender identity, is greatly relieved and enlivened by this new physical congruency. It's not perfect, but it's way better than what it was. In fact, it's a rather beautiful thing. So the "neurobiological imperative" that Teresa mentions at the beginning of her Declaration, is fulfilled. The body can be transformed to better match the gender identity, and then the individual can more effectively and more happily transit the gender divide in their own self-perception as well as in culture-at-large. So the transgender pathway is available to any who would take it, for as far as they wish to take it. There are both capitalist merchants and medical professionals and governmental officials who will help us go as far as we want to go. And there is no conspiracy standing in the way.
Teresa herself has been the beneficiary of this ever widening system, but she sees enemies everywhere: "A major faction of the transgender dictatorship seeks the deconstruction of the dichotomy of human sexuality and abolish the sex binary of male and female to suit a minute portion of the population and to create a legal classification of persons other than female or male that some call a third gender (sex), including transgender, genderqueer, bigender, gender neutral, gender fluid, polygender, etc. They would like to desegregate single sex-only spaces and establish gender neutral or multigender restrooms, locker rooms, schools, jails, etc. where all must be allowed in."
Again, "sex" is foremost on her mind. I've not encountered this "major faction" of the "transgender dictatorship" that is seeking to deconstruct the sexual binary of male and female. The gender binary, yes. The sexual binary, no. It is a biological fact that the basic template of sexual reproduction is based upon the polarity of male and female. If there are people out there disputing that, then they are as confused as those who think they can change their sex. It's in the realm of gender where people should be free to blend masculine and feminine energy, perspective and identity. In other words, to be themselves.
Transgender people are free to do whatever they want with their gender identity and presentation. They can play around with it, or they can go all the way to full gender transformation, including the physical self.
Teresa and the "transsexuals" are afraid of this freedom in the hands of the rabble. They are the sex changing aristocracy, the ones who are strict and serious and conformist and traditional about this mind/body dichotomy business, to the point of needing medical attention (as they keep reminding us). They are not free to decide for themselves where upon the gender spectrum they are most comfortable. They are commanded to proceed full speed. The "transsexual" Grand Council will revoke their "transsexual" membership in good standing if they don't get a move-on down Sex Change Road. And they don't like any posers muddying the water for them within the greater cultural pool. So they feel they must create a clear line of separation between their higher aim of "sex change," and the lesser and often aimless objectives of the transgenders. To create this division, they wish to sever all ties to the transgender community, and its motley collection of queers and crossdressers and pre-ops who don't have what it takes to become a real woman or man. It's basic clan mentality.
I'd like to take this opportunity to comment on many of the principal points that she makes.
In this piece, Teresa declares "independence, secession and liberation" from both the transgender umbrella collective and the LGBT collective, which in her view have variously sought to erase the identities, silence the voices and render "transsexuals" invisible and powerless. She argues that those who have undergone a "sex" change are entirely different from those only engaged in some sort of "gender" bending or changing, and that this differentiation renders any type of commonality futile.
The first thing I'm going to do is to throw out the word "umbrella" and substitute the word "rainbow." Though well-meaning, "umbrella" is a clunky description, conjuring a huddled throng of possibly disparate individuals, whereas "rainbow" connotes a smooth continuum of incrementally different individuals who nevertheless are grounded in unique commonality. This metaphor is far closer to the truth of transgender reality.
Now let's examine the first paragraph of her declaration: "We, the transsexual people, hold these truths to be self evident. We are an independent and distinctly different people who were born of a mind in contrast with our physical bodies. We have a neurobiological imperative to seek a congruence of mind and body, and through our transition we relentlessly pursue the remedy and correction of our birth defect through hormonal and other therapies and sex reassignment and other surgeries."
Notice how she admits that this condition involves a "mind in contrast with our physical bodies" and a "neurobiological imperative to seek a congruence of mind and body." This portion of her statement could well apply to any person on the transgender rainbow continuum. Even crossdressers have "a mind in contrast" with their physical bodies, and "neurobiological imperative" to cross the gender divide, if only temporarily. So she has established a firm framework of transgender commonality... with a brain/body incongruency issue at its core. But then she immediately seeks to diminish that commonality by separating out the "transsexuals" as different because only they relentlessly pursue a remedy for their "birth defect" through hormones and surgery.
Now her definition of "transsexual" is set: one who is relentlessly pursuing a "sex" change. But when does this relentless pursuit begin? When does one become "transsexual?" Before birth? At birth? In childhood? Adolescence? Young adulthood? Middle age? The senior years? The answer, of course, is that it can begin at any time of life. So then, what is the person before they begin their relentless pursuit? Not a "transsexual" according to the declaration's definition. Then no one is innately "transsexual," but rather must have both the mind/body incongruency AND the wherewithal to begin the relentless pursuit. Those who will not or cannot make this commitment need not apply to the club. And what about those whose commitment waxes and wanes? While they are dutifully taking their hormones and having electrolysis, are they "transsexual," while if they cease to do this for awhile, they lose their membership? In other words, are all preoperative "transsexuals" probationary, subject to having their TS status revoked at the first sign of weakening? Meanwhile, Teresa makes it clear that once one is post-op, the "transsexual" definition can be dropped for good. According to Teresa, the post-op M-t-F "transsexual" is now a real woman. The only transsexual aspect remaining is their history (which now they must hide). So it would appear that the state of "transsexuality" is quixotic and temporary.
This is clearly quite messy and irrational.
Teresa imagines a great transgender and LGBT conspiracy against "transsexuals," those who have a "bona fide medical condition." These conspirators want to depathologize and normalize the transgender experience, and claim that gender variance is natural. To the separatists, this is an afront to their mindset. They fear that if gender identity can be all over the map, and people can come and go as they please upon the masculine-feminine scale, then perhaps medical solutions aren't really necessary.
Teresa explains: "Since 'sex' in their view is between the legs only and 'gender' between the ears, all that has to be done is convince transsexuals that they only have to change their concept of gender and role and that they should be content with their original birth sex. Meaning it is better to change your mind than your body and better to change gender rather than sex."
This leaves me scratching my head. I've been around the transgender community for over 30 years, and I've never heard anyone suggest such a thing. Perhaps in the bad, old days psychiatrists proposed such a solution. Today, maybe some fundamentalist Christian program offers such an ideology. But I have never perceived any transgender or LGBT conspiracy to encourage "transsexuals" to not transition or to discourage them from obtaining medical and psychological assistance through that transition. Quite the opposite is the current reality, with most transgender support groups filled with knowledgeable pre and post ops, happily detailing their experiences, and a medical system that has never been as large, varied, accessible and welcoming as now. The facts simply don't support the separatists' claim of wide-spread repression and discrimination; actually they have never had more opportunities and rights than they have garnered as an important part and parcel, indeed leaders, of the transgender community.
I just believe that Teresa and the separatists are confused about sex and gender. They seem to assume that everything gender-related is in the head, while everything physical is sexual. They cling to outdated terminology and conceptualizations of 40 years ago that were themselves based upon shoddy differentiation between gender and sexuality. Changing your sex is impossible for humans. Yes, you can add hormones, which will induce some physical and psychological changes; you can surgically alter your genitalia and other body parts. So you've changed some aspects of your biological sexual components, but you haven't changed your sex. To do that, you would have to transform your chromosomes in all 100 trillion of your cells, as well as your gamete-producing apparatus. That's what sex really is all about: reproduction. If you haven't changed that, you haven't changed sex.
Even after the "sex" change operation, you may not have even changed your sexual orientation in terms of which gender you prefer to be with. Only about 30 percent of post-op "transsexuals" change their sexual orientation. It would seem that Teresa is among those whose actual sexual orientation was not changed by her "sex change." As a man she was attracted to women. It was XY on XX sex. Now as a transwoman, she is attracted to women. It's still XY on XX. Chromosomally, she was heterosexual, and she is still heterosexual, because there really wasn't a "sex change." But from a gender standpoint, she was straight, and now she's a lesbian. It was masculine/feminine sex, now it's feminine/feminine sex. So she is transgender, not transsexual. She should embrace the mind/body equation that actually affirms her feminine gender identity, not fight against it while trying to square the circle of the biological equation that actually refutes her proclaimed sexuality.
Alas it seems sexuality is the end-all and be-all for the separatists. Yet it's an impossible dream. They must bend themselves into pretzels and redefine words to form some semblance of logic to defend their position.
Teresa says, "Today there have been oxymoronic constructions of words used as a substitute for sex reassignment surgery including gender "reassignment", "affirming" or "confirming" surgery. Oxymoronic because it is a sex change and not a gender change operation-- as surgery is performed on primary and secondary sex characteristics, and not on "gender" organs."
The terms she describes as oxymoronic are actually just a bit clumsy, but not inaccurate. "Sex reassignment" or "sex change" are inaccurate. The surgery itself can be construed as a "reassignment" by oneself, or as some kind of official cultural initiation, graduation or correction. The terms "gender affirmation" and " gender confirmation" were coined as potential replacements for "reassignment," and may be more accurate, but haven't really caught on yet. This demonstrates the flux that our language is in as we evolve as a community.
The "transsexuals" are simply wrong in asserting that altering the sexual organs equates to a sex change. Altering primary or secondary sex characteristics still does not undo underlying sexual biology.
What is very possible is gender change. And gender is what it's important anyway, not sex. Gender is how you self identify and how you present yourself to society... at all times. Sexuality is about fucking... and from a genetic standpoint, reproducing. If it doesn't involve fucking or reproducing then sexuality doesn't actually have a lot to do with it.
Teresa vigorously disagrees (we can tell because she is shouting): "I AM NOT A TRANSGENDERSEXUAL! ...NO MATTER WHAT MY PHYSICAL, GENETIC & BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES ARE, THEY DO NOT MAKE ME SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN, SOMETHING "OTHER" THAN A WOMAN. I DID TRANSITION TO FEMALE SEXUALITY- AND IT IS MY SEXUALITY-- AND WHAT MAKES YOU THINK MY FANTASIES AND BEHAVIOR IS DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER WOMAN?"
She just doesn't get it. She's not going to win any friends among genetic women by claiming that she is just like "any other woman." That's just bullshit. She has no idea what it is like to be a genetic woman. That's a dishonest, ignorant and ignoble insult to individuals who were born female, grew up little girls, felt the subjugation and discrimination of male privilege and patriarchy every day of their lives, experienced the hassle and pain of menstruation every month starting around age 11 or 12, and lived in a state of constant vulnerability and disadvantage in a "man's world" without any relief all their lives, and also experienced the authentic magic of the holistic biological female self. Teresa is very definitely something different from this, and certainly not just "any other woman."
She continues: "We terminate our membership in our sex of birth and end our ability to function in that sexuality and instead have enabled our sexuality as the sex we have transitioned to. 'Sexual Identity' is whether you agree or disagree that you are a member of the assigned sex and whether or not you accept the sexuality and the sexual and reproductive role of that sex."
Teresa is so factually off base here that the mind boggles. Only if you change the words "sex" and "sexuality" to "gender" does this statement not grate like fingernails against the biological blackboard, and even that falls apart when she brings in the concept of "reproductive role." Reproductive role? You really want to go there, Teresa? Female sexuality is all about producing large gametes, eggs. Once Teresa is able to produce large gametes, then we'll talk about her "female sexuality."
So we can't change sex, and we can't steal the history, thought process and feelings of the opposite sex. But we can do the next best thing. We can change gender, as much or as little as we want to, and start building our own catalogue of experiences and history. We can wear the clothes of the other gender. We can style our hair like the other gender. We can wear the accessories of the other gender. We can gravitate toward the same interests as the other gender. We can learn to walk and talk like the other gender. We can learn to think somewhat like the other gender. We can get jobs as the other gender. Other people will treat us as the other gender. Sometimes, if we are good enough at all of this, most people will never even know we were not always of this gender!
None of this has anything to do with sexuality. But there's good news on that front as well. If we want to, through hormones and surgery and other methods, we can approximate the sexual characteristics of the other gender, to the point of even doing the sex act. We haven't completely changed our sexual biology, but we have to the extent we can copulate, or "have sex," in our new gender, perhaps with a new partner, or with the same old partner. Now that is really great for those who want it. And what happens is that the mind, the seat of gender identity, is greatly relieved and enlivened by this new physical congruency. It's not perfect, but it's way better than what it was. In fact, it's a rather beautiful thing. So the "neurobiological imperative" that Teresa mentions at the beginning of her Declaration, is fulfilled. The body can be transformed to better match the gender identity, and then the individual can more effectively and more happily transit the gender divide in their own self-perception as well as in culture-at-large. So the transgender pathway is available to any who would take it, for as far as they wish to take it. There are both capitalist merchants and medical professionals and governmental officials who will help us go as far as we want to go. And there is no conspiracy standing in the way.
Teresa herself has been the beneficiary of this ever widening system, but she sees enemies everywhere: "A major faction of the transgender dictatorship seeks the deconstruction of the dichotomy of human sexuality and abolish the sex binary of male and female to suit a minute portion of the population and to create a legal classification of persons other than female or male that some call a third gender (sex), including transgender, genderqueer, bigender, gender neutral, gender fluid, polygender, etc. They would like to desegregate single sex-only spaces and establish gender neutral or multigender restrooms, locker rooms, schools, jails, etc. where all must be allowed in."
Again, "sex" is foremost on her mind. I've not encountered this "major faction" of the "transgender dictatorship" that is seeking to deconstruct the sexual binary of male and female. The gender binary, yes. The sexual binary, no. It is a biological fact that the basic template of sexual reproduction is based upon the polarity of male and female. If there are people out there disputing that, then they are as confused as those who think they can change their sex. It's in the realm of gender where people should be free to blend masculine and feminine energy, perspective and identity. In other words, to be themselves.
Transgender people are free to do whatever they want with their gender identity and presentation. They can play around with it, or they can go all the way to full gender transformation, including the physical self.
Teresa and the "transsexuals" are afraid of this freedom in the hands of the rabble. They are the sex changing aristocracy, the ones who are strict and serious and conformist and traditional about this mind/body dichotomy business, to the point of needing medical attention (as they keep reminding us). They are not free to decide for themselves where upon the gender spectrum they are most comfortable. They are commanded to proceed full speed. The "transsexual" Grand Council will revoke their "transsexual" membership in good standing if they don't get a move-on down Sex Change Road. And they don't like any posers muddying the water for them within the greater cultural pool. So they feel they must create a clear line of separation between their higher aim of "sex change," and the lesser and often aimless objectives of the transgenders. To create this division, they wish to sever all ties to the transgender community, and its motley collection of queers and crossdressers and pre-ops who don't have what it takes to become a real woman or man. It's basic clan mentality.
"To be trans- "gender" is to change gender role. Gender is a sociocultural role construct that is a cluster of roles played that conform to the societal expectations of behavior and identity by those sexually assigned female or male."
Well close. Gender is personal identity and cultural presentation in addition to societal expectations of roles and identity. Almost always it matches up with biological sex. But, as we are discussing here, not 100 percent of the time.
"Change of gender is the last word in the transition of those whose journeys stop-- ending midway to becoming unified in body and mind. Transgender people are willing to settle for less than what transsexuals are seeking."
Absolutely wrong. Here Teresa and the separatists are simply taking it upon themselves to make up a new definition for "transgender," so that it will no longer include them. This is the same creative license they utilize to presume that modifying one's genitalia magically changes one's entire sex. They don't want to be under the umbrella, or on the same rainbow spectrum, so they are taking their identities and marching off. But it's rather like California declaring secession from North America. Nothing in the definition of the word transgender, either etymologically or within common usage, implies that a transgender individual cannot pursue and fulfill the same mind/body unification that a "transsexual" achieves. They don't have to, of course, but they can. I did. And I am proudly transgender, not "transsexual." And there are tens of thousands of other post-op transmen and transwomen who also consider themselves transgender.
Now, Teresa and the separatists charge that the "transgender Borg" are out to erase their identity and history. Nothing could be further from the truth. The transgender political movement is trying to save their true identity and history from those that would destroy it: the "transsexuals" themselves. But there is great irony in this tiny minority of "transsexual" reactionaries telling a much larger collective that they aren't what they think they are. According to them, you can't be transgender and have had surgery... or even want surgery. You can go midway, but stop right there, transgender person! You have no right to go any further. The "transsexual" Grand Council declares you unqualified!
It's a ridiculous assertion. Anyone is free to think of themselves in any terms they want. I will not say you don't have a right to think of yourself as Jesus or Cleopatra or a purple wallaby. Out of a desire to help you understand reality a little better, I might attempt to point out the delusions in your interpretation. Or I might just choose to ignore you. But I do have a right and duty to counter your attempt to set up a cultural meme that is blatantly in error, divisive and destructive, not just for others but for yourself as well.
The "transsexual" separatists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as a sex change, and therefore the word transsexual is inaccurate. There is no conspiracy. There is no Borg, though there is a welcoming, inclusive and powerful Rebel Alliance: the LGBT community and transgender community within that larger spectrum. No one is trying to erase their history or their identity, except themselves. No one is trying to prevent them from getting their surgery. No one is denying their difference from a crossdresser or gender queer or drag queen or any of the other people upon the transgender spectrum. Those who want surgery hold down one side of the transgender rainbow, and those who only want to dress up now and again hold down the other. They are certainly not the same, but they certainly are related.
Teresa and the separatists (who seem to be overwhelmingly M-t-F) see enemies and repressors everywhere. They are suspicious of and angry at the transgender community, gays, lesbians, the straight people, normal society, even F-t-M "transsexuals" (because by typically not undergoing the all-important surgical initiation, they are dubiously "transsexual"). In this embattled state, as well as in the incoherency of their doctrine and dogma, they are like the fundamental Christians and political conservatives, at war with the world and reality.
The pity is that these people cannot embrace all of the grand and wonderful diversity of the human rainbow, and accept their own unique and special qualities, and the sacredness of their individual journey. In their fervent wish to be the other "sex," the "transsexuals" have missed the epiphany of being something far more profound. They think they have a birth defect, something to be corrected and then forever hidden, rather than a challenge-gift of sublime meaning. They are the ones struggling so desperately to erase their own history and true identity in flailing pursuit of an impossible dream. In dreamlike seeking of "sexual congruence" they end up losing their authentic, holistic self. They are doing themselves, and all who come behind them, no favors.
I would imagine that this way of thinking will soon largely die out. Younger trans people are much more open to embracing their authenticity as a blend of masculine/feminine energy and perception. Giving up the impossible dream of ever becoming, deeply biologically, the opposite sex/gender, and opening up to the possibilities of forging your own unique gender identity, and bringing your physical self into the best possible congruence with that self is the true pathway to wholeness and happiness.
The mystical word transgender conveys the essence of this journey. Long may it inspire and unite those who would accept the challenge to understand it, explore it... or to be it.
Friday, July 15, 2011
RIGHT WING MEDIA BIAS IS JUST THE START OF IT
The shocking and surprisingly sudden implosion of the British tabloid News of the World essentially begs for gloating among liberals. So I shall giddily indulge, and fervently hope that more travails await the individual ultimately responsible for sickening tactics utilized by the paper. That, of course, would be Rupert Murdoch, the arch-conservative Australian, now U.S. media mogul whose most influential American holding is Fox News.
It doesn't fly that poor Rupert is himself innocent of these sins. His own son, James Murdoch, was chairman of the News Corp division that controlled News of the World. Les HInton, one of Murdoch's most trusted allies and advisors for over 50 years and most recently chief executive of Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, previously directly oversaw the company's British empire. Hinton has resigned as a result of the scandal. And Rebekah Brooks, a "virtual daughter" of Murdoch's, was one of his primary British lieutenants and had her hands all over News of the World. She, too, resigned, and then was arrested.
News of the World was busted for hacking back in 2006, so it is simply incredulous that Mr. Murdoch could be unaware of the trend within his organization. Sealing Rupert's culpability is his own mother's disdain for his de rigueur smarmy "journalistic" tactics. As far back as 42 years ago when he purchased News of the World, Dame Elisabeth Murdoch fretted that he would find a way to get himself in trouble with such a tabloid. "It killed me" that he purchased the paper, she claimed. It must say something when your own mother rejects your ethics.
In all, so far over 10 people have been arrested, and the chief of Scotland Yard has stepped down from his post, admitting that he had no idea of the depth of the depravity involving his department. And now we learn that one of the original whistle blowers, an ex News of the World reporter who would certainly know what was going on, has been found dead. The crap just keeps getting deeper.
Rupert Murdoch is perhaps the most powerful media mogul in history. As might be expected by such a conquering businessmen, his tactics are often ruthless. Anything goes in his quest to dominate. But in Rupert's case it's not just money he is after, nor even pure power; he is pushing an ideology: the gospel of conservatism.
News of the World reporters and management considered it perfectly reasonable to engage in a variety of smarmy, slimy and clearly illegal activities, including hacking into the phone and internet accounts, not of just celebrities as we might expect, but those of politicians and average citizens, including crime victims, 9/11 victims, and even that of a 13-year old murdered British girl, going so far as to erase messages when her phone message box was full. Fallout from the hacking debacle has subsequently revealed a pattern of bribery of policemen by the paper, paying for telephone numbers and other contacts. Allegations reveal an unseemly coziness between Murdoch and many British politicians, especially the conservatives, including current Prime Minister David Cameron. Turns out one ex News of the World editor was Cameron's communications director. Another News of the World ex-editor was public relations director of Scotland Yard. Both exers are now under arrest.
The shit has hit the fan in Britain, to the extent that Murdoch himself felt compelled to rush over from his New York redoubt to stem the damage. It didn't work. The puddle of crud was so black and foul not even Magic Murdoch could sort things out, so he pulled the plug on News of the World. And so one of Great Britain's venerable old papers, one that had been around for over 160 years, was ruined by the Murdoch ethic: win at any cost; no tactic is too sleazy.
Worse for Murdoch, the raging controversy sunk his shot at a lucrative deal for British cable network BSkyB, which would have pumped up his already formidable UK footprint. Adding to his woes, he has been summoned to testify before Parliament to answer for the sins of his spawn.
It doesn't fly that poor Rupert is himself innocent of these sins. His own son, James Murdoch, was chairman of the News Corp division that controlled News of the World. Les HInton, one of Murdoch's most trusted allies and advisors for over 50 years and most recently chief executive of Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, previously directly oversaw the company's British empire. Hinton has resigned as a result of the scandal. And Rebekah Brooks, a "virtual daughter" of Murdoch's, was one of his primary British lieutenants and had her hands all over News of the World. She, too, resigned, and then was arrested.
News of the World was busted for hacking back in 2006, so it is simply incredulous that Mr. Murdoch could be unaware of the trend within his organization. Sealing Rupert's culpability is his own mother's disdain for his de rigueur smarmy "journalistic" tactics. As far back as 42 years ago when he purchased News of the World, Dame Elisabeth Murdoch fretted that he would find a way to get himself in trouble with such a tabloid. "It killed me" that he purchased the paper, she claimed. It must say something when your own mother rejects your ethics.
In all, so far over 10 people have been arrested, and the chief of Scotland Yard has stepped down from his post, admitting that he had no idea of the depth of the depravity involving his department. And now we learn that one of the original whistle blowers, an ex News of the World reporter who would certainly know what was going on, has been found dead. The crap just keeps getting deeper.
Rupert Murdoch is perhaps the most powerful media mogul in history. As might be expected by such a conquering businessmen, his tactics are often ruthless. Anything goes in his quest to dominate. But in Rupert's case it's not just money he is after, nor even pure power; he is pushing an ideology: the gospel of conservatism.
Which brings us to Fox News, the American broadcasting kin of News of the World. No, Fox hasn't yet been accused of any such blatant charges. But the clearly unethical behavior of News of the World at last shines a bright light on Murdoch's values, which are very much on display every day on Fox News. Survey after survey reports that Fox News viewers are consistently among the most misinformed of television viewers. That's "misinformed," not "uninformed." Millions of Fox viewers have their screens permanently locked on to Fox News where they are greeted by the slogans "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide." In fact, however, these are blatant lies. There has never been an American news channel less fair and balanced than Fox News. And Fox doesn't "report", it distorts, distracts and divides. It lies. Bill O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" is one of the spinningest television programs in history.
Fox News is the only major news channel in U.S. history that is owned by a radical political ideologue. It was founded first and foremost to promulgate political ideology. The Fox News chairman is a former conservative political operative, Roger Ailes. There is no equivalent liberal, or even moderate, channel. The early CNN under the direction of the socially liberal Ted Turner never exerted an overtly liberal bent; it has tracked very close to center throughout its existence, its prime motivation to survive to make money, never as an ideological vehicle. Of course, Turner hasn't been at the helm of CNN in decades, and CNN itself, like most major media, has more recently leaned rightwards, particularly through the Bush-Cheney drums of war era. Meanwhile, the more recent advent of an unabashedly liberal-leaning channel such as MSNBC (owned jointly by conservative conglomerates Comcast and General Electric), represents a meager attempt to cull a lucrative, high end demographic - educated liberals - for advertisers, and is but one of hundreds of sources moderates and liberals turn to for their news, while the Fox "fair and balanced" juggernaut monopolizes the died-in-the-wool conservative base. Only Fox offers such a concentrated and uncontested message to its loyal viewers.
The saying that "truth has a liberal bias" is taken to heart by Fox News. Fox completely separates itself from all other media by intentionally disseminating untruth. It picks and parses real news, and aggressively sensationalizes pseudo news, to support the conservative audience's investment in clan mentality: a propensity toward fear, greed and prejudice. Working with this recipe of distraction, diversion and division, Fox relentlessly injects its political agenda, which boils down to anything and everything that furthers corporate primacy. Most Fox viewers are blissfully ignorant or uncaring of this prime objective, which may very well serve against their own best interests, while remaining hooked to Fox's diet of sensationalism and justification for conservative clan mentality.
It's a toxic mix that has played a critical role in the poisoning of politics in America and corruption of truth, which, of course, is the only way that a coporate aristocracy can achieve the critical mass of support it needs to subjugate the masses. But it doesn't stop there. As with New of the World in Britain, Fox News is in bed with American conservative political leaders, wielding king-making and king-breaking power. It is, in effect, the Republican media outlet, serving as both master and mouthpiece for the conservative collective. The filthy rats nest that has been uncovered at News of the World extends throughout Murdoch's News Corp. It's a culture of deceit, intimidation, coercion and corruption.
Fox News promulgates the illusion that it is an embattled singularity in a swarm of liberal bias - the "fair and balanced" alternative to the vaunted "liberal media." The liberal media bias is an utter myth, one of many Conservative Myths that form the exoskeleton of the conservative belief system. As mentioned, most other major media are conscientiously seeking the facts. They may not always be perfect in their reporting and delivery, but they are not out to purposefully deceive. Fox News is. So this is yet another example of conservative "projection:" accuse your opponent of doing what, in actuality, you are doing. The grandest example of projection is the rich Republican's cry against "class warfare." It's always class warfare when someone suggests bringing some of that wealth down to the masses in the form of taxes, but it's never class warfare when the money is being sucked upwards and into the coffers of the elite of the elite.
One brief look at the arch conservative Rupert Murdoch's media holdings (see below) simply blows the legs out from under the silly notion of any liberal media bias. Read it and weep liberals. There is nothing remotely like it. From books to television to newspapers to the internet, Murdoch's smarmy tactics and destructive politics have a hold on almost every corner of the globe. Add to this domination the nearly 100-to-1 advantage that American conservative radio talkers hold over their liberal colleagues, and the full ridiculousness of any liberal media bias becomes crystal clear.
Likely Murdoch's dark empire will emerge relatively unscathed from the News of the World debacle. But maybe the light of investigation, even if shining for just a brief period, will illuminate the scope of the monster's tentacles and tendencies, and give pause to those who so blithely believe Fox's every word. Like News of the World, like Fox News, Rupert Murdoch is a blight upon a civilized culture.
ARCH CONSERVATIVE RUPERT MURDOCH'S WORLDWIDE MEDIA HOLDINGS:
Books
- HarperCollins book publishing company
- HarperCollins India (40%)[clarification needed] joint venture with India Today Group
- Zondervan Christian book publisher
- Inspirio – religious gift production.
[edit]Newspapers
- Australia published by News Limited.
- The Australian (Nationwide)
- Community Media Group (16 QLD & NSW suburban/regional titles)
- Cumberland-Courier Newspapers (23 suburban/commuter titles)
- The Courier-Mail (Queensland)
- The Sunday Mail (Queensland)
- The Cairns Post (Cairns, Queensland)
- The Gold Coast Bulletin (Gold Coast, Queensland)
- The Townsville Bulletin (Townsville, Queensland)
- The Daily Telegraph (New South Wales)
- The Sunday Telegraph (New South Wales)
- Herald Sun (Victoria)
- Sunday Herald Sun (Victoria)
- The Weekly Times (Victoria)
- Leader Newspapers (33 suburban Melbourne, VIC titles)
- MX (Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane CBD)
- The Geelong Advertiser (Geelong, Victoria)
- The Advertiser (South Australia)
- The Sunday Mail (South Australia)
- Messenger Newspapers (11 suburban Adelaide, SA titles)
- The Sunday Times (Western Australia)
- The Mercury (Tasmania)
- Quest Newspapers (19 suburban Brisbane, QLD titles)
- The Sunday Tasmanian (Tasmania)
- Northern Territory News (Northern Territory)
- The Sunday Territorian (Northern Territory)
- The Tablelands Advertiser (Atherton Tablelands and the Far North, Queensland)
- Fiji
- Fiji Times (National) (10%)
- Nai Lalakai (10%)
- Shanti Dut (10%)
- Papua New Guinea
- Papua New Guinea Post-Courier (National) (62.5%)
- UK and Ireland newspapers, published by subsidiaries of News International Ltd.
- News Group Newspapers Ltd.
- The Sun (published in Scotland as The Scottish Sun and in Ireland as The Irish Sun)
- News of the World (ended publication 10 July 2011)
- Times Newspapers Ltd.
- News Group Newspapers Ltd.
- US newspapers and magazines
- The New York Post
- Community Newspaper Group
- The Brooklyn Paper
- Bronx Times-Reporter
- Brooklyn Courier-Life
- Queens Times Ledger
- Community Newspaper Group
- Dow Jones & Company
- Consumer Media Group
- The Wall Street Journal
- Wall Street Journal Europe
- Wall Street Journal Asia
- Barron's – weekly financial markets magazine.
- Marketwatch – Financial news and information website.
- Far Eastern Economic Review
- Enterprise Media Group
- Dow Jones Newswires – global, real-time news and information provider.
- Factiva – provides business news and information together with content delivery tools and services.
- Dow Jones Indexes – stock market indexes and indicators, including the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
- Dow Jones Financial Information Services – produces databases, electronic media, newsletters, conferences, directories, and other information services on specialised markets and industry sectors.
- Betten Financial News – leading Dutch language financial and economic news service.
- Local Media Group
- Ottaway Community Newspapers – 8 daily and 15 weekly regional newspapers.
- STOXX (33%)- joint venture with Deutsche Boerse and SWG Group for the development and distribution of Dow Jones STOXX indices.
- Vedomosti (33%) – Russia's leading financial newspaper (joint venture with Financial Times and Independent Media).
- SmartMoney
- Consumer Media Group
- The Timesledger Newspapers of Queens, New York:
- Bayside Times, Whitestone Times, Flushing Times, Fresh Meadows Times, Little Neck Ledger, Jackson Heights Times, Richmond Hill Times, Jamaica Times, Laurelton Times, Queens Village Times, Astoria Times, Forest Hills Ledger, Ridgewood Ledger, Howard Beach Times
- The Courier-Life Newspapers in Brooklyn
- The Brooklyn Paper
- Caribbean Life
- Times-Herald Record (Middletown, New York)
- The New York Post
[edit]Magazines
- News America Marketing (Smartsource) (weekly Sunday newspaper coupon insert/website)
- Australian
- Alpha Magazine
- Australian Country Style
- Australian Golf Digest
- Australian Good Taste
- Big League
- BCME
- Delicious
- Donna Hay
- Fast Fours
- GQ (Australia)
- Gardening Australia
- InsideOut (Aust)
- Lifestyle Pools
- Live to Ride
- Notebook
- Overlander 4WD
- Modern Boating
- Modern Fishing
- Parents
- Pure Health
- Super Food Ideas
- Truck Australia
- Truckin' Life
- twowheels
- twowheels scooter
- Vogue (Australia)
- Vogue Entertaining & Travel
- Vogue Living
- InsideOut (UK Based Magazine)
[edit]Music and radio
[edit]Russia
- Nashe (50%)
- Best FM (50%)
[edit]Sport
- 50% of the National Rugby League (Australia and New Zealand)
- Majority ownership of the Brisbane Broncos (68.9%) and full ownership of the Melbourne Storm rugby league team.
- Colorado Rockies (15%)
[edit]Studios
- Fox Filmed Entertainment: 20th Century Fox's parent company
- 20th Century Fox: a film production/distribution company
- Fox Searchlight Pictures – specialized films.
- Fox 2000 Pictures – general audience feature films.
- 20th Century Fox Television – primetime television programming.
- 20th Television – television distribution (syndication).
- Fox 21 – low scripted/budgeted television production company.
- Fox Television Studios (productions)- market specific programming e.g. COPS and network television company.
- Fox Television Studios International
- Fox World Productions
- Fox World Australia
- Fox TV Studios France
- Fox TV Studios India
- Natural History New Zealand – natural world documentaries, non-fiction programming.
- Fox Faith – Promotion and distribution of Christian and related "family friendly" movies on DVD and some theatrical release.
- Fox Studios Australia, Sydney, New South Wales
- Blue Sky Studios – production of CGI films e.g. Ice Age.
- Fox Entertainment Group
- New Regency Productions (20%) – general audience feature films.
- Regency Enterprises (20%) – parent company of New Regency Productions (50%).
- BSkyB Studios London, England
- FOX Star Studios New Delhi, India
[edit]TV
News Corp agreed to sell eight of its television stations to Oak Hill Capital Partners for approximately $1.1 billion as of 22 December 2007. The stations are US Fox affiliates.[43] These stations, along with those already acquired by Oak Hill that were formerly owned by The New York Times Company, formed the nucleus of Oak Hill's Local TV LLCdivision.
[edit]Broadcast
- Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox), a US broadcast television network
- My Network TV, a US broadcast television network
- Fox Television Stations Group, a group of owned and operated Fox television stations
- Saeta TV Channel 10, channel of Uruguay
- ITV plc (7.5%), a British broadcast television network and the UK's largest advertising revenue based broadcaster
- News Corp Europe
- bTV, a broadcast television network in Bulgaria. They sold this to CME in February 2010.
- B1 TV (12,5%), a broadcast television network in Romania, in partnership with Ismar International NVkkkk
- Fox Televizija, a broadcast television network in Serbia (49%). They sold this to Antenna Group in January 2010
- Fox Turkey, a Turkish terrestrial channel (56,5%) (formerly TGRT)
- Imedi Media Holding (100%), a Georgian radio and TV broadcaster.
- Imedi Television
- Radio Imedi
- Israel 10 (9%), a terrestrial channel in Israel.
- LNT (100%), a terrestrial channel in Latvia
- TV5 Riga (100%), a terrestrial channel in Latvia
- Cielo (100%), a free channel in Italy
- ANTV (20%), a private television station in Indonesia, under the administration and label of STAR TV
- Prime Television New Zealand – commercial TV station, interest held through stake in SKY Network Television
[edit]Satellite television
- British Sky Broadcasting, United Kingdom & Ireland (39.1% holding). In practice, a controlling interest.
- SKY Network TV, New Zealand (44%)
- SKY Italy, Italian satellite TV service
- SKY México, Latin American satellite TV service
- SKY Brasil, Brazilian satellite TV servive
- SKY Germany (49.90%), Germany's largest pay TV provider
- SKY Tata (20%), an Indian DTH HDTV service (in partnership with Tata Group)
- Foxtel (25%), Australia, a joint venture with Telstra (50%) and Consolidated Media Holdings (25%)
- FOX Italy, Italian Broadcast and Production Company (with 2 HDTV)
- STAR TV, an Asian satellite TV service having 300 million viewers in 53 countries (it acquired STAR Vijay andAsianet, (two prominent south Indian networks)
- Phoenix Television (17.6%), satellite TV network with landing rights in Hong Kong, and select provinces on Mainland China.
[edit]Cable
Cable TV channels owned (in whole or part) and operated by News Corporation include:
- Fox Business Network, a business news channel.
- Fox Classics, a channel airing classic TV shows & movies
- Fox Movie Channel, an all-movie channel that airs commercial-free movies from 20th Century Fox's film library
- Fox News Channel, a 24-hour news & opinion channel
- Fox Sports Net, a chain of US regional cable news television networks broadcasting local sporting events linked together by national sports news programming. Local channels include "Fox Sports Southwest", "Fox Sports Detroit", etc. (some affiliates are owned by Cablevision).
- SportSouth, a regional sports network in the United States, with its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia, and affiliate of Fox Sports Net.
- Sun Sports a regional sports network in the United States, with its headquarters in Miami, Florida, and affiliate of Fox Sports Net.
- Fox College Sports, a college sports network consisting of three regionally aligned channels, mostly with archived Fox Sports Net programs but also some live and original content.
- Fox Sports International
- Fox Soccer Channel, a United States digital cable and satellite network specializing mainly in soccer.
- Fox Soccer Plus, a sister network to FSC, but including coverage of other sports, most notably rugby union. Launched in 2010 after News Corporation picked up many of the broadcast rights abandoned by Setanta Sportswhen it stopped broadcasting in the U.S.
- Fox Sports Middle East – English language sports network airing in Middle East countries including Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE & Yemen.
- Fox Pan American Sports (37.9%) – joint venture with Hicks, Muse, and Tate & Furst.
- Fox Sports en Español (50%), a Spanish-language North American cable sports network; its sports lineup is tailored to appeal to a Latin American audience.
- Fox Sports en Latinoamérica, a Mexico-based Latin American satellite and cable sports network.
- FX Networks, a cable network broadcasting reruns of programming previously shown on other channels, but recently creating its own programming, including the Emmy Award-winning programs The Shield and Damages.
- Speed Channel
- FUEL TV
- Big Ten Network, cable and satellite channel dedicated to The Big Ten Conference, launched Aug 2007 (49%)
- National Geographic Channel (joint venture with National Geographic Magazine) 67%
- National Geographic Channel International 75%
- National Geographic Wild (joint venture with National Geographic Magazine)
- Fox International Channels, domestic cable channels offering different formats of Fox programming in over thirty countries worldwide.
- Fox
- Fox Life
- Fox Life HD
- Fox Crime
- FX
- Fox Horror
- Fox Movies
- Fox Sports
- Speed Channel
- National Geographic Channel
- National Geographic Channel HD
- National Geographic Wild
- National Geographic Adventure
- National Geographic Music
- National Geographic Junior
- Cult
- Next:HD
- Voyage
- Real Estate TV
- BabyTV
- Fox Toma 1 – Spanish language television production.
- Fox Telecolombia – Spanish language television production. (51%)
- Utarget.Fox – European and Latin American online ad company, plus now handles TV ad sales.
- Middle & South America
- Fox Latin American Channels – channels available in over 17 countries in Latin America
- National Geographic Channel
- National Geographic Channel HD
- National Geographic Wild
- Nat Geo Music
- Universal Channel
- Universal HD
- Fox Channel
- Fox HD
- FX
- Fox Life
- Syfy
- Fox Sports
- Speed Channel
- Baby TV
- Utilisima
- Fox One-Stop Media – advertising sales for company owned and third party channels in Latin America
- LAPTV (60%) (Latin American Pay Television) operates 8 cable movie channels throughout South America excluding Brazil.
- Telecine(12.5%) operates 5 cable movie channels in Brazil.
- Fox Latin American Channels – channels available in over 17 countries in Latin America
- Australia
- Premier Media Group (50%)
- Premium Movie Partnership (20%) – movie channels, a joint venture between 20th Century Fox, Sony, NBC Universal, Viacom and Liberty Media
PLATFORMS
- India
- Hathway Cable & Datacom (22.2%), India's 2nd largest cable network through 7 cities including Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Mumbai & Pune
- Taiwan
- Total TV (20%), Pay TV platform with JV partner KOO's Group majority owner (80%). News Corp also has a 20% interest in the KOO's Group directly
[edit]Internet
- Fox Interactive Media
- Foxsports.com – website with sports news, scores, statistics, video and fantasy sports
- Hulu (27%) – online video streaming site in partnership with NBC Universal and The Walt Disney Company.
- Flektor – provides Web-based tools for photo and video editing and mashups.
- IGN Entertainment – Internet entertainment portal (Includes the sites IGN, GameSpy, TeamXbox, 1up.com, and Askmen.com)
- Giga.de
- Slingshot Labs – web development incubator (Includes the sites DailyFill).
- Strategic Data Corp – interactive advertising company which develops technology to deliver targeted internet advertising.
- Scout.com
- WhatIfSports.com – sports simulation and prediction website. Also provides fantasy-style sports games to play.
- Indya.com – 'India's no. 1 Entertainment Portal'
- ROO Group Inc (5% increasing to 10% with performance targets)
- News Digital Media
- News.com.au – Australian-oriented news website
- CareerOne.com.au (50%) – recruitment advertisement website in partnership with Monster Worldwide.
- Carsguide.com.au
- in2mobi.com.au
- TrueLocal.com.au
- Moshtix.com.au – a ticket retailer
- Learning Seat
- Wego News owns minority stake in Wego.com
- Netus (75%) – investment co. in online properties.
- REA Group (60.7%)
- Realestate.com.au
- Casa.it (69.4%), Sky Italia also holds a 30.6% share
- atHome group, operator of leading realestate websites in Luxembourg, France, Belgium and Germany.
- Altowin (51%),provider of office management tools for realestate agents in Belgium.
- Propertyfinder.com (50%), News International holds the remaining 50%
- Sherlock Publications, owner of hotproperty.co.uk portal and magazine titles 'Hot Property', 'Renting' and 'Overseas'
- ukpropertyshop.co.uk, most comprehensive UK estate agent directory.
- PropertyLook, property websites in Australia and New Zealand.
- HomeSite.com.au, home renovation and improvement website.
- Square Foot Limited, Hong Kong's largest English Language property magazine and website
- Primedia – Holding co. of Inside DB, a Hong Kong lifestyle magazine.
- TadpoleNet Media (10%) Hosts of ArmySailor.com
- New Zealand
- Fatso – leading online DVD subscription service (ownership through stake in Sky Network Television).
- Fox Networks – one of the largest international ad networks.
- Expedient InfoMedia blog network.
[edit]Other assets
- NDS – Conditional access technology and personal digital video recorders (PVRs) (49%)
- Jungo
- Timothy Coville
- ITE, publisher of PlayStation and Mobile games, and interactive television
- Broadsystem Ltd (UK) – Telephony provider for media companies, bought in 1991
- Broadsystem Australia (Australia)
- Broadsystem Ventures (UK) – provider of cheap-rate telephone calls, particularly for customers of Sky Television. Bought outright in 1999.
- Jamba! – Mobile Entertainment/Mobile Handsets Personalisation/Games.
- News Outdoor Group – Largest outdoor advertising company in Eastern Europe with over 70,000 ads including billboards and bus shelters, operating in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Israel, Poland, Romania, Russia (96 cities), Turkey & Ukraine.
- Maximedia Israel (67%)
- Mosgorreklama (50%) – Russia sign and marketing material manufacturer
- Kamera Acikhava Reklamclik (?) – leading outdoor advertising company in Turkey
- Australian Associated Press (45%) – real time news service.
- Stats Inc (50%) – worlds leading provider of sporting information and statistical analysis (a JV with Associated Press)
- Fox Sports Grill (50%) – Upscale sports bar and restaurant with 7 locations – Scottsdale, Arizona; Irvine, California; Seattle, Washington (U.S. state)|Washington; Plano, Texas; Houston, Texas; San Diego, California; andAtlanta, Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia.
- Fox Sports Skybox (70%) – Sports fan's Bar & Grill at Staples Center and 6 airport restaurants.
- News America Marketing (US) – (100%) – nation’s leading marketing services company, products include a portfolio of in-store, home-delivered and online media under the SmartSource brand.
- Rotana (9%) – Largest Arab entertainment company owned by Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal
- The Daily – iPad only newspaper delivered daily.
- Making Fun – social game developer for making games for social networking sites, smartphones, tablets and other devices.[44]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)