Posts Tagged ‘feminism’

Victory for transgendered Georgia elected official Michelle Bruce!

December 4, 2007

Yay! Good news in this horrid, anti-trans lawsuit:

“Judge finds no gender fraud in Riverdale election,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution

In Riverdale, incumbent Michelle Bruce — cited by the National Center for Transgender Equality as the first transgender elected official in the Georgia — will compete against political newcomer and Atlanta firefighter Wayne Hall for council ward 2.

Two losing Riverdale City Council candidates — Georgia Fuller and Stan Harris — asked a judge to rule the Nov. 6 general election invalid and halt the runoff, alleging Bruce lied to voters when she ran as a woman.

In their suit, Fuller and Harris allege Bruce’s name is Michael Bruce. Their attorney, Michael King, argued that Bruce’s birth certificate lists her as Mickey Dwayne Bruce and a man.

“I understand he’s been on the council for four years, but they believed he was a female and not a male,” King told the court. “He did that to deceive the females to get their vote.”

Bruce testified that she changed her name in Clayton County Superior Court in 1980 to Mickey Michelle Bruce and goes by Michelle Mickey Bruce. She said she is transgender and declined to answer additional questions about her gender.

Bruce testified that she never was named Michael Bruce.

Cole Thaler, a transgender rights attorney for gay advocacy group Lambda Legal, said he was pleased to see the judge side with Bruce.

“There is a common misunderstanding that transgender are misrepresenting themselves,” said Thaler, who sat in on the hearing but did not represent Bruce. “The judge’s ruling shows that he understands transgender people are being their true selves and not defrauding the public.”…

After the hearing, Bruce said she was disappointed by the personal attacks but planned to continue campaigning for the runoff.

“I feel vindicated, and it shows that special interest groups don’t care about the citizens of Riverdale or their wishes,” Bruce said. “I can’t say it doesn’t hurt. It does hurt.”

PLEASE mess with Texas!

November 29, 2007

Oh my goodness this piece in The Daily Texan, by Ryan Haecker is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read! (via Figleaf)

Dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world. Such has been the case since the western man adopted pants to replace the tunic in the sixth century (an aspect of the West’s Germanic barbarian heritage). Dresses allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs. Dresses are the indelible image of womanhood because of the symbolic nature of pants and dresses. If all fashions are symbolic, dresses in particular symbolize womanhood by more fully embodying the ideal of a true lady, the objective understanding of what men find attractive in the fairer sex: passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love, piety and fertility. These defining aspects of womanhood are immutable. We all tacitly reaffirm these attributes in our attempts to find a partner. Flirtation and courtship are reaffirmations of what it means to be masculine and feminine because it is only by fulfilling the obligation of our form that we can attract the opposite sex.

You might say these things were once true but times have changed. Not so. The nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective, immutable and incontrovertible because it is directly related to the constant and unchanging physiology of men and women. What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. In this way, the ideal form of femininity is also unchangeable and without regard for cultural context or time period. What men find attractive in women – the form of a true lady – is objectively identifiable, just as it was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. In short, femininity is sexy, and sexy is timeless and universal.

It seriously gets even worse:

The androgynous masculinization of the modern woman, through the donning of pants, suits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow whorification of ladyhood.

I would try to rebut it but I think any thinking person can see why his blanket dismissal of pants, feminism, and, well, the entire 21st century, perhaps, is so misguided. Wonder what he thinks about men in dresses and whether they count as that “essential part of a true lady’s attire?” The ironic thing is that I almost exclusively wear skirts and dresses; probably less than five times a year do I wear pants. But not because I want to be “ladylike.” Because I’m femme and that’s how I feel the hottest!