(from an anonymous question)
okay okay so there are a lot of things I am going to try to respond to. hopefully they will all make sense? also, I’m not really an authority on any of this, but apparently the fact that I’m a transfeminine radical feminist makes me the target of this question? haha anyway. so.
what is a fetish?
Rather than immediately answering “is it strange”, I want to start by deconstructing the concept of a “fetish”. Most of this is going to be done on a more abstract level, just to identify the discourses we are dealing with. Towards the end, I’ll attempt to relate this back to your specific question. So, anyway. I’m assuming you use the word fetish to mean what mainstream society constructs as a sexual fetish - a specific object or situation which causes sexual arousal. For the most part, this object/situation is somehow assumed to be “weird” or “different” - in other words, most people wouldn’t consider a vagina to be a fetish in the context of a heterosexual man being attracted to a cis woman. (However, I would encourage people to complicate this understanding - radtransfem has some done some excellent writing about Cultural Heterosexuality as the fetishization of femininity). In mainstream heteronormative patriarchal hegemony, a fetish is something “weird” or “different” or “unique” which turns someone on (such as clowns, or being tied up with rope, or popping balloons by stomping on them in heels). There are varying definitions of how crucial a fetish is to a person’s sexuality - some people declare that for something to be a fetish, sexual arousal/satisfaction/climax/whatever is only possible when that fetish is present. In other words, some people frame a fetish as something that is *necessary* for sexual pleasure. Others, however, place a fetish more on the level of a “turn-on” - something that increases sexual pleasure, but isn’t inherently *necessary*.
critiquing the societal definition of a fetish
There are two things I want to start problematizing about the above-stated cultural definition(s) of a fetish. First of all, how different is “different”? In other words, where is the line between what is considered “normal” sexual arousal, and what would be considered a fetish / weird / kinky / etc.? Is there a difference between a fetish and a kink? Take bondage, for example. Some people would consider bondage to be a fetish, or a kink. Other people (especially those in a more “sex-positive” / sexualized setting) might consider it to be pretty normal, relatively speaking. I’d like to take a moment to quote the wikipedia article for sexual kink, which states:
Kinky practices go beyond what are considered conventional sexual practices as a means of heightening the intimacy between sexual partners. Some draw a distinction between kink and fetishism, defining the former as enhancing partner intimacy, and the latter as replacing it. While others define “kink” as lesser (possibly socially acceptable) form of fetishism. Because of its relation to “normal” sexual boundaries, which themselves vary by time and place, the definition of what is and is not kink varies widely as well.
The point is, the definition of what is “unconventional” depends on what society has constructed as “conventional” - making any discussion of fetishes and kinks subjective and context-dependent. I do find it interesting the way the article suggests that a fetish could be a “replacement” for partner intimacy - this is a topic I’ll return to in a bit when discussing radical feminist / psychoanalytic definitions of a fetish.
But anyway, sticking with the mainstream definition, I want to bring up another point of critique - what is the difference between a fetish and a turn-on? People are often able to identify a list of things that they find particularly attractive (a certain hair color, wearing glasses, tattoos, a certain accent, etc.) - but when does something actually get defined as a fetish? Many people would say that a fetish is meant to refer to a specific object (such as a specific article of clothing), but how different is this from being turned on by someone wearing glasses / suits / tutus / etc? One could argue that something becomes a fetish when it is used in a specific sexual context - for instance: most people have feet, so it could be assumed that a foot fetish doesn’t refer to being turned on by someone who has feet, but rather by focusing sexual activity on the feet.
radical feminist definitions of fetish
Now that we’ve examined a “mainstream” definition of a fetish, I want us to take a look at what radical feminist theory has to say about fetishes. I’ll start by quoting radtransfem’s summary of Mary Daly’s writing (with the note that Mary Daly has said many terribly racist and transphobic things - this is in no way meant to be an endorsement of all of her work, just an examination of one particular idea of hers):
For Daly, a fetish is a sexual connection to a thing which is unable to relate back. So, it can be towards an inanimate entity/concept such as a boot or a smell. Or it can be towards a body part, context-free without a human being present. Or, and this is where I found Daly’s analysis most striking, it can be a sexual relation with a person who does not have the power to relate back as an equal. And the power of the “sexiness” of that fetish can be based on that lack of power to reciprocate. This is a kind of sexual attraction based on the way that processes of objectification can reduce a person (a woman)’s agency so that we can be related to in a way more closely resembling an object/a non-living thing, a process which requires the (largely figurative, sometimes literal) death of ourSelves.
When discussing fetishization, especially of a specific type / group of people, it is important to keep these facts in mind. Especially with regards to your question - your fetishization of trans women seems to be completely “towards a body part, context-free without a human being present”.
complicating sexual orientation - sex and gender
Now that we’ve unpacked some of the meanings of the word “fetish”, I want to take a minute to do the same with sexual orientation. As feminism / queer theory / transfeminism has already worked to explain, gender and sex are complicated social constructions. At birth, infants are assigned to be either “male” or “female” (even though many do not fit neatly into these categories), and throughout their lives people are read as being either “physically male” or “physically female” through a complex combination of primary sexual characteristics (genitalia / reproductive systems, which do NOT exist in a binary), secondary sexual characteristics (breasts / body hair / fat distribution / etc, which each exist in a spectrum), chromosomes (XX vs. XY, even though others are possible), and hormone levels (estrogen and testosterone, of which all people have varying amounts). In other words, sex doesn’t neatly match up into the oppositional binary categories of “male” and “female” that a cissexist/heterosexist society insists upon. Gender is even more complicated! Based on the sex they are assigned at birth, a person is assumed to identify with what society has defined as either “male” or “female”, when in reality these are just arbitrary groupings of abstract traits (dominant, violent, passive, emotional, logical, creative, nurturing, protective, etc.). In addition, different people “perform” or “present” their gender different ways - not all people who identify as female wear pink frilly dresses every day!
So, once we’ve acknowledged that sex and gender are both 1) very complicated, and 2) social constructions, what does it actually mean to define a sexual orientation? When someone says they are attracted to men, what do they mean? Do they mean penises? Do they mean masculine body characteristics (i.e. flat chest, body hair, muscles, testosterone-influenced skeletal structure, facial hair, etc.)? Do they mean masculine presentation (suits, t-shirts, jeans, boots, other “manly” clothes, etc.)? Do they mean behavioral traits that society has identified as masculine (aggressive, dominant, logical, stoic)?
I encourage everyone to take a minute to examine their own desires, and figure out what it means to define sexual orientation in a fluid, non-binary system. Instead of simply explaining your orientation in terms of “men” and “women”, try to figure out what ACTUALLY determines your attrition.
With regards to your specific question - both of the situations you suggest (a trans woman with a penis, or a (cis?) woman with a strap-on - involve being penetrated with some sort of phallic object. Would you define yourself as being attracted to anyone with a penis, regardless of their gender? Are you also attracted to (cis?) men? Are you attracted to women, without a penis/strap-on? I think these are all important aspects of your orientation to interrogate.
is it strange? more importantly, is it problematic?
Okay, I’ll finally try to answer your question. Is it strange? I guess this depends on what you mean. Is it uncommon? A little bit, but not that much - there are many people who define themselves as being attracted to trans women (even though the way they do so is often problematic - more on this later). There are also many people who enjoy being penetrated by a strap-on. I find it interesting to note that your strap-on situation includes being tied up - is this an unrelated kink/turn-on/fetish, or would you still enjoy having sex with a woman with a strap-on/phallus, even if you weren’t tied up? Anyway, I guess the point is this: I don’t really feel comfortable labeling a specific kink/turn-on/fetish as “strange”, since that implies an inherent “normalness” of some kinds of sex, and “weirdness” of others… and also, it feels kinda awkward to say that anyone who would be attracted to my body type would be experiencing a “weird” sort of attraction.
Whether or not the fetish is “strange”, I do think we should try to examine whether it is problematic. While some people may balk at the idea of critiquing a particular desire/fetish/turn-on, I think it is important. After all, all sexuality exists in a patriarchal society defined by power gradients. I particularly enjoy this quote from radtransfem, in her article discussing the attempt to define a feminist sort of desire:
“Sexual subjectivity is about realising that we get to have our own desires, and that the existence of others’ desires doesn’t automatically make ours disappear. [ … ] Sexual subjectivity is different from entitlement, which says that we get to have those desires met. And it’s different from individualist liberalism, which says that because they are our desires, they’re automatically right. We don’t get to have automatically right desires – we just get to have desires. After all this whole Progress depends on the idea that we can identify our own desires and those of others as problematic and imagine something different.”
So, about your desire for trans women / women with strap-ons. I feel like context is important. After all, a straight(?) cis man being attracted to a trans woman has a *very* different power dynamic than another queer/trans* person being attracted to a trans woman. In addition, how does this attraction fit in to your orientation? Like I asked earlier, is this consistent with other body types you feel attracted to? I think that trans people are often used as “in-between” points, for cis people exploring/repressing their sexuality. A “straight” man may use trans women as a “excusable” experience with “homosexuality” - she has a penis, but it doesn’t *actually* count as gay, since she’s a woman. I feel like this is very dangerous territory, which is why I encourage people to explore their orientations, and be as honest as possible.
In addition, I feel like there is a blurry line between “preference” and “fetish”, particularly when it comes to a specific body type / type of person. When you fetishize a person, are you objectifying them into a mere object for sexual pleasure? When you fetishize a trans woman, do you value anything about her other than her penis? Or have you reduced her to a glorified sex toy? It’s important to remember that all people are different, and that not all trans women may conform to your generalized expectations. We all have different bodies, different opinions about our bodies, different wants, different needs, different things we enjoy, different things we want to avoid. Some of the authors I link to at the end provide a more thorough discussion of what it means to be someone’s fetish… this is something I strongly encourage you to keep in mind.
what others have said
As I said at the beginning, I’m not “the authority” on anything. I just happen to be a queer transfeminist who reads a lot about gender, sex, and sexuality. As such, I’d like to provide some links to things other people have written about the topic. Natalie Reed has an article specifically about the fetishization of trans women, which can be found here - http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/02/15/chicks-with-dicks-trap-chans-chasers-and-trans-fans-the-question-of-fetishization/. Matt Kailey has two articles about the fetishization of trans people - one discussing the fine line between preference and fetish - http://tranifesto.com/2009/05/22/preference-or-fetish-the-very-fine-line/ - and one exploring the problematic nature of fetishization of trans women - http://tranifesto.com/2009/10/29/another-transsexual-fetish-call/. Drew Cordes has an article about what it feels like to be someone’s fetish - http://www.bilerico.com/2010/10/im_somebodys_fetish.php. I hope these articles help answer your question!
an interesting note - psychoanalytic definition of fetish
If we examine the psychoanalytic definition of a fetish, given by scholars such as Freud and Lacan, we find a very specific (and oddly, humorously, relevant) definition. According to Freud, all (cis) boys developed a fear of castration after they first saw their (cis) mother’s genitals, and realized that she didn’t have a phallus. He theorized that all male children were under the impression that their mothers originally had penises, but had been castrated by their fathers. Therefore, a fetish was a sexualized object meant to draw attention away from the female genitals and the castration anxiety they were assumed to imbue. In your case, the fetish would quite literally represent the mother’s penis! For some reason, I find this really funny. Anyway. yeah.
Soooo this has been a really long post. Hopefully some people read it, and found it interesting / informative / thought-provoking? Anyway, I welcome any and all discussion/critiques/disagreement/comments! Please let me now what you think!
What does casual racism look like in LGBTQ spaces? A lot like casual racism everywhere else.
Casual racism thinks mixed race people are “exotic,” penis size is determined by race according to “some studies” that probably don’t exist, black women are aggressive, and just about every other common racial stereotype under the sun.
Really, stereotypes fuel casual racism in all its forms.
Casual racism also thinks that LGBTQ people have transcended all responsibility for dealing with racial issues.
For example, if you’re a queer person of color who wants to vocalize a racial concern in a predominantly white queer space and casual racism rears its head, you could be accused of being divisive (extra irony points if you were pointing out divisiveness that actually exists).
Sometimes casual racism masquerades as inclusion or open mindedness. For example, there are some gay people who go out of their way to date someone of another race just to say they’ve done it.
Such gays then receive the Congratulatory Cookie of Open Mindedness from people of color for letting us sleep with them.
But not really, because dating someone because of their race is as ridiculous as rejecting someone because of their race.
The same applies to predominately white gay groups that go out of their way to snag token people of color (oblivious to the fact that these spaces don’t always feel inclusive to the people of color in question).
Tokenism may seem progressive on its surface, but it’s really just another form of othering.
So if you see casual racism, remember it. And talk about it.
Notice if you’re ever guilty of it and, if you are, take responsibility for it.
I would say explain it to other white LGBTQ people, but it’s frustrating when it takes a white person saying the same thing people of color have been saying for ages to convince other white people to change their actions.
Instead, tell them to take the race related concerns of LGBTQ people of color seriously – as in listen to us.
As LGBTQ people, we get silenced all the time, told we’re too sensitive, told not to flaunt our sexuality.
Sexual minorities of color can find themselves silenced further when their concerns about race are dismissed by the predominantly white, mainstream LGBTQ community.
Let’s keep working to change that.
Crossing Over tells the particular and complex story of the transgender Latin immigrant community in Los Angeles through three of its most distinctive members.
Brenda came to the United States from Mexico over ten years ago to escape mental and physical abuse, and after initially struggling to survive in the U.S. by any means possible, eventually sought asylum and was allowed to stay. Brenda works as a community advocate and HIV support-group leader, but it is her vivacious personality and light that truly makes her a matriarch among her community.
Abigail is newer to the US than Brenda, and though she too has sought asylum, she is still figuring out how to get by. She works as a nightclub dancer and quinceñara planner in order to put herself through community college. While she dreams of eventually becoming a lawyer to fight for the rights of people like her, she must battle what seem like insurmountable demons to achieve her goals—depression, addiction, and poverty.
Francis has worked for a decade as a housekeeper and caretaker for the same family in Los Angeles, and is on the brink of the final asylum hearing that will determine whether she can remain in the United States.
Each subject lives a very different facet of the trans-Latina experience, and yet the message that their stories convey is unified and clear—that this is a community that has faced inconceivable abuses and yet have risen to create an environment of love, leadership, and support, and for these reasons deserve to live in this country.
Watch the trailer below:
Crossing Over is currently in the stages of post-production. Look for the finished product September 2013. Katrina Sorrentino, from Nomadique, is the Producer for Crossing Over. This post was written by Alex Pitz, who is the Associate Producer and screenwriter for Crossing Over.
Photos taken by Isabel Castro
“This result is the product of a legal system that constantly devalues trans lives, particularly trans people of color,” Jason Terry, an activist with the D.C. Trans Coalition, told the Blade. “Officer Furr’s defense team actively sought to portray the victims as somehow deserving of this violence, and apparently they succeeded. If roles had been reversed and a black trans woman had gotten drunk and shot a gun at a police officer, the results would be drastically different.”
Bolded for truth.
Music to her ears.
Laci Green used this word once when she was 18, deleted the offending video after it was brought to her attention and issued a sincere apology that actually contained the word “sorry”. She was burned at the stake and run off the internet.
Tyler Oakley uses this word multiple times, leaves all of them intact, and later issues a statement saying “Just because you’ve accidentally said things that were transphobic in the past doesn’t mean you can’t learn and help educate yourself and others right now and for the future.” He’s heralded as an advocate of queer culture and a positive role model for all LGBTQ youth.
Just something to think about.
Tyler Oakley is absolutely shameful.
Isn’t it ironic how the people those laud as “heroes” for the LGBTQ* community are the most cisgendered transphobic ones?
i think i already publicized this on tumblr but i can’t find the post. here’s a screenshot of an encounter i had with him in september of 2011:
(for reference, this is the video in question.)
i think he’s a despicable person and basically just gross
two deer walk out of a gay bar, one turns to the other and says “man, i can’t believe i blew thirty bucks in there”.
my sexual orientation is best described as:
eyeliner and plants.
I just need that entire comment on my blog:
“It’s just a bullshit PR campaign, nothing more. Telling kids to put up with bullying until they leave school is not constructive advice. It’s cruel. School boards, school administrators, teachers, etc., need to have zero tolerance policy for bullying. It’s not uncommon for teachers to bully unpopular kids themselves. That’s where the changes need to be made. But that requires action, and it requires standing up to conservatives who fight anti-bullying campaigns tooth and nail (often claiming that bullying gay people is a christian right). The reason “It Gets Better” caught on with politicians and celebrities is because it’s great PR and it requires absolutely NOTHING from them in the way of real action.
It’s cruelty to tell a kid to tolerate bullying. And to whom is this campaign even directed? The fat gay kids that Savage makes fun of himself? It’s a campaign aimed at good looking white boys with great bodies and upper middle class families. Yes, THEY will do better once they start hitting the gay bars. But for most average looking kids from working class families, they will find a gay community that’s often very much like High School, with cliques and teasing and rejection. Gay kids need to get support from society, and the kids that need that most are the kids that Savage himself would mock and demonize; kids of color, working class and poor kids, fat kids, kids with acne, and kids who are otherwise marginalized in society AND in our community.
Even when you look at the videos on YouTube, you see politicians who’ve come out against marriage equality, sports teams that would never accept a gay person in their ranks, and celebrities who just want some good press. The gay kids who participate are often great looking white boys, who you know will be accepted in the gay community, and are already leading charmed lives. It’s a campaign for the people Savage likes…sexy white male teenagers with athletic bodies who will be greeted with open arms.
I’ll take the campaign seriously when Savage speaks out on behalf of marginalized gay kids, and criticizes the gay community for iots racism and other prejudices. But he’s the biggest bigot and bully of the bunch, and that’s been proven from his many years as a “columnist.” I often couldn’t believe how conservative, prejudiced, and intolerant he was in those columns.”
Also trans people.
Dan Savage doesn’t care about the T, and he’s been actively, grossly cissexist on many distinct occasions.
Not to mention asexuals, women, lower-class people, etc.
Let’s face it kids, Dan Savage is the most hypocritical douchebag in the queer rights movement.
But yes I agree with everything that has been posted above.
don’t forget that he thinks bisexuals in general need to “make up their mind” and that male bisexuals are essentially unicorns
I once had an extended argument over when he was glitter-bombed because he’s a huge hypocritical transphobe. You can’t claim to be a trans* ally and then hurl transphobic slurs at your enemies. There’s no complicit-by-ignorance-and-stupidity argument to be made there - that’s just straight up transphobia. He is not an ‘activist.’ He is making a great living by essentially capitalizing on the intersection of his hegemonic identities and a burgeoning pinkwashed economy.
liking all the commentary here, and yeah that’s always bugged me about the “it gets better” campaign; it should be made better for kids NOW, not just waiting for them to get older and for their life to stop sucking