When political whiteness met heteroactivism
The Journal of Gender Studies presents:
(Re)producing sex/gender normativities: LGB alliance, political whiteness and heteroactivism
Do pause to drink it all in before moving on to the abstract. It’s so…how shall I say…predictable. Formulaic. Conformist.
The author is Helen Clarke of Oxford Brookes University. We are told:
Helen’s research explores how decolonial feminism can be used to create alternative practices of solidarity, tackling trans-hostility in cis lesbian communities. She is involved in various feminist projects, working at creating more inclusive and supportive activist environments for all women, non-binary folk and gender diverse people.
Weird, isn’t it, claiming to be a feminist who specializes in feminism while she deletes women from feminism.
So, the abstract:
LGB Alliance, as a prime example of gender-critical feminism, argues that the ‘sex-based’ rights of those who are ‘same-sex attracted’ are threatened by the inclusion of trans individuals, and trans lesbians especially. In seeking to exclude trans women from gay/queer spaces by presenting them as a threat to (cis) lesbians, LGB Alliance can be understood as deploying strategies of heteroactivism and political whiteness. Sex/gender normativity is discursively framed through specific configurations of gender, race and class, including visual codes determined by biological and cultural standards that are, ultimately, a product of colonial/racial science. Trans lesbians, gay men and bisexuals whose bodies are not regarded as sex/gender normative, who are perceived as queering the male/female binary, and who are understood as falsely and dangerously claiming a label of homosexuality, are subjected to suspicion and surveillance, their bodies rendered inferior and denied social and cultural recognition. Although LGB Alliance claims its advocacy is intended to support and advance the interests of the (cis) lesbian, gay and bisexual community, the article argues that the organization can be read as (re)producing and engaging in harmful discourses related to heteronormativity, racism and classism, and which, overall, seek the restriction and limitation of broader LGBTQ+ equalities.
Scare quotes on “sex-based” and “same-sex attracted” – so we are meant to think those are mistake-words in some way. In what way? In the way that if you don’t scare-quote them and hold them at arm’s length you must be a terf and therefore evil. This is the new “feminism.” In other words she lets us know from the outset that by feminism she means trans “activism.” She means feminism is not for or by or about women, but instead for men who pretend to be women.
Then the bit about seeking to exclude men from lesbian spaces “by presenting them as a threat to (cis) lesbians” – as if male lesbians are the only real lesbians, and the female kind are a stupid parenthetical wannabe subgroup. Then accusing them of “deploying strategies of heteroactivism and political whiteness.” How are the strategies “of heteroactivism”? How is it heteroactivist to understand that lesbians are women and men are not women and therefore not lesbians? And how does the “political whiteness” get in there? As anything other than a brainless taunt and an insidery wink to equally brainless colleagues?
Then we learn that knowing which sex is which is a product of colonial/racial science. Cue a wave from Judith Butler. Then she accuses the LGB Alliance of “engaging in harmful discourses related to heteronormativity, racism and classism.”
It’s so formulaic and predictable it’s hard to see what the point is, other than adding “an article” to the resumé.
Needs a copy-editor… I’m not one, but if I may play one on the internet (here’s hoping I don’t bork the html..):
In seeking to
excludeincludetrans womenmen who claim to believe they are womenfromin gay/queer spaces bypresenting them asdemanding that others cater to their delusions, despite them clearly representing a threat to(cis)lesbians, LGB Alliance can be understood as deploying strategies to counteract the familiar abusive tactics ofheteroactivism and political whitenessmisogynists and narcissists (who in turn like to use nonsensical terms like “heteroactivism” and “political whiteness” in an attempt to co-opt the struggles of underprivileged groups).Good job!
I like that, Ibicca. It also seems like they use those terms to indicate that they themselves, though possibly heterosexual, are not heterosexual, not really, but queer, and that they may have white skin but they are not white, not really, but politically BIPOC.
This is a huge leap, and it looks to me like they are using this language to tie the TiMs and TiFs to the late 20th century gay rights movement, and also to the struggle for civil rights for people of color. Not to mention, women, who really have had their bodies rendered inferior throughout most of history and have been denied social and cultural recognition aside from being associated with a man as wife, mother, sister, daughter, or other relationship to a man.
If anyone is rendering bodies inferior, it is those that insist on medical interventions, including cross-sex hormones and removal of healthy body parts to make your body look superficially like the sex it is not. If people cannot live with the bodies they have, they are obviously regarding those bodies as inferior, and needing to be changed.
LGB Alliance, as a prime example of gender-critical feminism
Is it though? No knock on them, but my understanding is that the organization is specifically about LGB rights, not particularly about a specific brand of feminist thought.
One can be critical of trans ideology while not being gender critical.
Sex/gender normativity is discursively framed through specific configurations of gender, race and class,
Oh FFS.
including visual codes determined by biological and cultural standards that are, ultimately, a product of colonial/racial science.
Because evidently gender roles weren’t a feature in the pre-scientific world, and western ones have nothing at all to do with the legacy of such as ancient Greece or Rome. Also, note the sneering disdain for science. That is a common mark of an academic charlatan, because science requires evidence, and doesn’t always conform to the desires of the sort of racist who thinks black women are a different sex/gender to white women. Or the kind of snob who thinks their cash or social clout magically makes them a different sex/gender from the boring normal ones those dirty proles are stuck with.
Trans lesbians, gay men and bisexuals whose bodies are not regarded as sex/gender normative, who are perceived as queering the male/female binary, and who are understood as falsely and dangerously claiming a label of homosexuality, are subjected to suspicion and surveillance, their bodies rendered inferior and denied social and cultural recognition.
No. What is actually happening is that we do in fact recognize the sex of trans lesbians. They’re actually straight men who want to get it on with lesbians. Trans gays? They’re straight women who want to get it on with gays.
It isn’t a lack of recognition here, it is that the rest of us do recognize them, and they’d much rather we didn’t.
Interesting. I started reading the actual paper, reached the end of the first paragraph, looked up the two references in her bibliography and followed the links to the sites of the periodicals cited – both of which returned a 404 error. She also supplies purported links to these articles on Google Scholar – both returned the message ‘Sorry, we couldn’t find this article.’
I took a look at her contact details (linked via the envelope icon after her name) and found ‘School of Social Scientists, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Correspondence dr.helen.clarke@gmail.com‘. Likewise at the end of the paper, under ‘Notes on contributors’, there is the following paragraph:
‘Dr Helen Clarke (she/her), Oxford Brookes. Helen’s research explores how decolonial feminism can be used to create alternative practices of solidarity, tackling trans-hostility in cis lesbian communities. She is involved in various feminist projects, working at creating more inclusive and supportive activist environments for all women, non-binary folk and gender diverse people.’
So I searched for her on the Oxford Brookes web site; response: ‘No results returned for “helen clarke”‘. Helen Clarke without quotes threw up several Helens and Clarkes, but no ‘Helen Clarke’.
I note that she invites correspondence through a gmail address. I would expect a university email address from someone who claims a university post, or at least an affiliation.
So – what is going on here? Is she acting out a fantasy? Or is this paper a spoof? Is she intending a parody? Transactivist rants are so far removed from reality that how could you possibly tell?
Good sleuthing. How very…shady. Unless, as you say, she’s another Sokal.
I have rechecked the two references that turned up a 404 error and found that in both cases there was a mistake in the link; the items do exist. Since I am an obsessional nutcase, I have now gone through the entire bibliography and the other references all check out; or at least, the papers and books cited are actual publications.
Sadly, I think this woman is serious; this is not a spoof. The whole thing is a piece of vile homophobia masquerading as righteous concern.
One thing I’ve noticed: the two botched links are supposed to substantiate a claim that the LGBAlliance ‘has connections to the US religious right, including the Heritage Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom’. But neither of the pieces linked make that claim; they don’t even mention either of those organisations. It is, of course, a malicious lie.
There is more that I’d like to say, but it is getting late here in England. I may take a further look at that piece tomorrow, if I can stand it.
What a scholarly piece! You can tell it’s deep by the academese. Discursive framing!
(Please do share your findings, Night Crow, if you can bear to wade back in!)
Yes please do. Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favored rage.
This reads like something produced by the postmodern essay generator. Like really.
Half the humanities needs to be amputated and burned to cinders if we’re to save any of it.
No, you just need to make sure any gender woo major isn’t allowed to combine her degree with any respectable subject… No decolonial biology, no feminist mathematics, no queer religious studies. Strict quarantine between disciplines.
Oh I think burned to the ground is better. Any discipline that produces this kind of preening empty bullshit ought to disappear.
OK, I’ve done some more digging.
Helen Clarke’s article has been praised on twitter by Doerthe Rosenow, a lecturer at King’s College London, and previously at Oxford Brookes, who refers to Clarke as “my amazing PhD student”. Presumably Rosenow supervised, or helped to supervise, Clarke’s PhD when she (Rosenow) was teaching at Oxford Brookes. So that checks out.
Rosenow links to Helen Clarke’s twitter stream. Clarke describes herself as an ‘Intersectional feminist. Researching trans-exclusions in lesbian communities.’ In her pinned tweet, she asserts: ‘I am a cis lesbian, with a cis lesbian wife & lots of cis lesbian friends.’ (What, no ‘trans lesbian friends’? Isn’t that rather, um, exclusive?)
Clarke links to her attack piece on LGB Alliance and also to another recent article, “Toward Pedagogies of Decoloniality: Evaluating Teaching Practice and Syllabus Design in IR Undergraduate Modules”. [IR=”International Relations”.] That article is not available for public access, which is fine by me; reading the abstract was quite enough.
Well as a Humanities graduate I may have too much of a soft spot even for the empty preening though welding ties me more closely to the real world these days… Religious Studies wasn’t exactly the most productive use of my time I don’t regret it.
Thanks for the further digging NightCrow.
BK – really? I too am a hums graduate and that’s why I despise the empty preening. Humanities are not empty preening!
At least if they’re done right. I’m glad my humanities class was in 1979, before all this crap got started. And I almost missed it in my MFA, which finished in 2014. There were two mentions of trans during my playwriting program. It was right after I graduated, if I remember correctly, that Ophelia left FTB.
Yesterday evening I gritted my teeth and sat down to read Clarke’s article in full, pencil in hand. By the time I reached the end I was worn out with snarling and writing rude notes in the margins, and besides, it was getting late, even for a nightcrow. I went to bed. Well, here are my thoughts on a key sentence from the abstract:
‘In seeking to exclude trans women from gay/queer spaces by presenting them as a threat to (cis) lesbians, LGB Alliance can be understood as employing strategies of heteroactivism and political whiteness.’
Comment:
‘Trans women’ do not belong in lesbian spaces because they are not lesbians. They cannot be lesbians because lesbians are women and trans women are by definition males. Clarke tries to conceal this obvious point by prefacing ‘lesbians’ with ‘cis’, thus implying the existence of ‘trans’ lesbians. In this way she attempts to slide past the fact that a male person pursuing a sexual interest in women is performing heterosexuality, which is not appropriate in ‘gay/queer spaces’. (I will add that it is well known that some ‘trans women’ seek sex with lesbians in order to ‘prove’ that they themselves are actual women.)
To quote the academics who coined the term, ‘Heteroactivism … [is] a term that describes activisms seeking to place heteronormativities (that is the alignment of normative genders and sexualities) as superior to other sexual/gender identities and therefore “best for society”.’ By accusing lesbians who don’t want ‘trans women’ invading their space of ’employing strategies of heteroactivism’ Clarke is claiming, to put it colloquially, that they are behaving like straights. In other words, she is trying to turn the situation upside down: the rejected heterosexual males are the oppressed, and the lesbians refusing to be bullied or wheedled into sex with them are the oppressors.
The term ‘political whiteness’ seems to have been invented by Professor Alison Phipps of Glasgow. Here’s what she says about it in one of her articles:
So, for white women especially, the message is this: do not set yourselves against ‘trans people’ in any way, ever, otherwise you will be using your white privilege to oppress them. At least I think that’s the gist of what is meant.
[…] Remember Helen Clarke? Of Oxford Brookes University and Approved Opinions on Trans Isshooz? […]