An academic paper from 2013:
Boycunts and Bonus Holes: Trans Men’s Bodies, Neoliberalism, and the Sexual Productivity of Genitals
One author is an anthropologist, the other is a linguist.
You want to read the abstract, right? Of course you do.
Recent theorizations of trans embodiment have brought attention to the ways neoliberalism limits the productivity of nonnormatively gendered bodies. This article deals with the discursive framing of embodiment and sexual desirability among trans men and other transmasculine persons negotiating Internet-mediated homoerotic spaces. Micro-level analysis of discourse structure and macro-level analysis of socio-political context together show how trans men navigate homonormative sexual economies by linguistically recuperating their bodies’ sexually productivity. Instead of undermining claims of embodied masculinity and homoerotic value, potential sites of exclusion—i.e., trans genitals—become sites of flexible accumulation that enhance rather than detract from their bearers’ desirability.
If you say so, but do trans men really have a lot of luck on gay “dating” sites?
Comments
17 responses to “The productivity”
“We have no idea what is going on, but we wanted to jump on the bandwagon anyway, so we’re going to use all the jargon. That way, when no-one understands what we’ve written, they’ll feel stupid for their lack of understanding instead of blaming us.”
It would be instructive and even fun to have ChatGPT respond to that title.
Found a typo! Based on the title, this should be sexual productivity.
Doesn’t change the fact that women don’t have dicks, and gay men don’t do women. Good luck browbeating and guilting men into accepting sexual partners they’re not interested in.
Not sure exactly what you think you’re “accumulating” “flexibly”, but it’s not likely to be dicks.
I’d never heard of Lal Zimman before, so I checked out his Wikipedia page.
I must be getting old, because “transgender linguistics” wasn’t a subfield when I was in grad school.
Well god knows it’s heavily based on language games.
More from the Wikipedia page:
So why is Zimman in Feminist Studies?
The first paragraph of Zimman’s bio on Zimman’s personal site:
The word is “consummate.”
(Possible) translation:
“When females who consider themselves to be gay men try to join places on the internet where actual gay men hang out, they try to use a lot of words to convince these men that accepting female bodies as “male” really just enhances and expands their homoerotic opportunities.”
I bet they do. I bet it doesn’t.
Or as I slightly more crudely translated it in my head “When women who claim to be men try to convince gay men to consider them fuckable it’s a good wheeze to talk a lot of pseudo-erudite jargon in hopes that it will do the trick.”
Suffering, ball-headed Christ on a popsicle stick. Why don’t they just say, “cruising gay apps”?
By the way, the link is blocked.
This link seems to work:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24294971/
Sorry! I don’t know how I messed up that link but I did. Fixed now.
I seem to recall another trans-identified female under discussion recently who had been (and perhaps continues to be) active in feminist work (except where gender identity ideology stomps all over it, obviously). Wish I could remember the specifics.
The rejection of TIFs by gay men has been called the Boxer Ceiling. There is a fair amount of vitriol directed at gay men for this rejection. I don’t know anything about the journal linked below, but the information on the page is consistent with what I’ve read before. Unfortunately the “receipts” page is now gone.
https://gaymalejournal.org/the-facts-about-supergay-vs-trans-homophobia/
Laurie Penny maybe?
I’d bet it’s not as nasty or entitled (or as successful) as that directed at lesbians by TiMs. I’d bet gay men are more successful at defending their spaces and facilities than lesbians. I’m guessing that gay men, being men, have fewer demands to “be kind.” Women are socialized to subordinate their interests in favour of others’. Gay men, however sterotypically “sensitive” they might be, are still more likely to have the same traditional, patriarchal male entitlement they grew up with. This is the same “unwomanly” sense of entitlement that TiMs use to force their way into lesbians’ spaces, whether those spaces be bars, music festivals, or dating apps. All have fallen to demands for “kindness” and “inclusivity.” I’m guessing that gay men, being men, are more likely to be allowed to defend their spaces to a degree not afforded to lesbians. TiFs, being women, just don’t have the same clout. Or respect. They are less likely to be deferred to by gay men, and less likely than TiMs to recruit activist allies to support them. When push comes to shove, (physically and politically) TiMs are going to have more success against lesbians, and women in general, than TiFs are against men, both gay and straight.
They forgot to blame Zionism.