Making it all about You
Here’s a shining example of the kind of thing that is sundering so many friendships and alliances: Aaron Kappel on why women and feminists are so horrible.
The piece starts with an unpleasant fantasy about peeling off a strip of skin, unpleasant enough that I skipped over most of it.
The fluidity of gender is complicated; it is messy and it is beautiful. If I’ve learned anything, it’s that I cannot say with any real sense of authenticity or certainty that I know who or what I am–not fully. I lived as a cis heterosexual man for the first 22 years of my life. I then lived as a cis homosexual man for another decade. Today I am something much closer to myself.
I identify as non-binary because at this point in my life–as I deconstruct obstructions that have confined my existence thus far–I understand that there is a deeper truth found within that I have yet to unearth.
The important thing is, Kappel is a special snowflake.
Now that I have a deeper understanding of who I am, now that I know I am not male, the rejection of my humanity is visible all around me. Just as my mother did, there are those who insist that because of my body, I cannot be who I am.
And sometimes, those doing the insisting, the hurting, are self-described feminists.
Of course. It’s always the feminists. It’s never the big looming drunk guys in bars, it’s always the feminists. Let’s all sit down and get cozy and have yet another session of Bash the Feminists.
One Friday night earlier this fall, my partner and I were having drinks at a dark, dank dive bar in center city Philadelphia with his brother’s fiancée (let’s call her Kelly) and her best friend. I was ambivalent going into the planned happy hour–something we do together every few months–in part because it would be the first time I’ve seen them since I’ve been living as non-binary. Happy hour quickly turned into many hours.
Several pitchers in, I returned from the restroom to find that pronouns were being discussed. My partner had just finished telling Kelly that because I am non-binary, I use gender-neutral pronouns, they/them.
Notice something missing? There’s nothing about Kelly’s feminism. There’s nothing to suggest that she is a feminist, apart from the fact that this story follows Kappel’s mention of feminists.
As I sat down, Kelly decided to bombard me with questions about, and alternatives to, how I identify. At one point she, in all seriousness, suggested using “it” as a pronoun instead.
“No,” I stated sternly.
“I’m only asking to understand,” she replied.
“I am not an it!”
Maybe that is why my body shook and my breath lost its rhythm; my eyes flooded, then evaporated, and my skin lost all its moisture.
It’s sad about Kappel’s eyes evaporating. The part about the skin though – couldn’t that be from the many hours in the dark dank dive bar and the several pitchers of beer? Alcohol is dehydrating.
Maybe that is why I had to use one hand to help lift the other hand, and why I fumbled erratically, wrapping my ankles around the legs of the chair so as not to fall off and into the void below–for the entire room fell away. The floor disappeared and there was nothing but an eternal darkness.
All because of feminism! Or, you know, because of being drunk.
Where does feminism fit into my experience? Specifically, where do I fit into feminism? I know that for feminism to be successful and beneficial, it must be intersectional–yet even in alleged intersectional feminism, there is exclusion, erasure, or outright dismissal of people like myself.
Bullshit. Feminism is about women’s rights, so no, it should not “center” people who lived as men for 32 years. Feminism should not be so “intersectional” that it stops being about women’s rights.
I told Kelly that I was not her encyclopedia, that her using me to gain understanding was a problem. She continued to question my humanity, even after I became visibly and audibly upset, while her friend said nothing and permitted the abuse to continue.
I muttered, “This isn’t about you,” and Kelly began crying. In a matter of seconds, she centered herself as the victim.
As I sat between the two women, I clung to my chair, grasping for the support an inanimate object is incapable of providing. Then I rose and walked out into the night, sobbing, panting, shaking my way home.
In other words Kappel had a massive tantrum, and now uses the tantrum as evidence of the harm that Kelly did. That too is bullshit. Kelly may have been very obnoxious or may not have, but Kappel’s panting and shaking – not to mention the evaporated eyes – does not count as evidence that she was.
This is merely one example of what happens when feminists reject intersectionality. That rejection is violence, and people like myself are the recipients of that violence.
When feminists speak about feminism and address their audience by saying he or she as a means to be inclusive, I am excluded. When they speak to or about other feminists and use only female-specific pronouns and descriptors, I am excluded. When women call for equity and inclusion but exclude those who reject the gender binary, we feel the same oppression these women are purportedly contesting. If intersectional feminism does not include trans people of all stripes, then it is not intersectional.
Blah blah blah blah – feminism has to be about me me me me or it is not intersectional. Feminists have to stop talking about women, dammit!
The narcissism and self-absorption and spite are obvious and disgusting. Kappel goes on for many more paragraphs explaining why feminism should be all about Kappel and how very special Kappel is. It’s as painful to read as tearing off a strip of skin would be.
Sounds a lot like emotional blackmail.
And it’s emotional blackmail in aid of demanding that feminism stop being about women’s rights and become about former men who are now non-binary instead.
Fuck that.
Asking questions is “denying [their] humanity” and “violence.”
Aaron indulges in protracted adolescense while the world burns.
These people are such fucking babies. I’m a woman. Have I been personally injured by sexism and misogyny? Probably, but I mostly just live my life. I didn’t endure FGM or a forced marriage or trafficking or anything like that. But I’m still an outspoken feminist, even though I can’t point to any particular instance where I’ve been grievously hurt because I’m a woman, because I’m not blind or totally lacking in empathy.
But this dude. This dude dismisses feminism outright, in total, because feminism doesn’t come to his house and celebrate his personal feelings about his gender. The selfishness is appalling.
Isn’t it? I honestly found that thing quite nauseating to read.
What’s feminism got to do with this?
She was being disgracefully obnoxious – seriously, “Why don’t you call yourself ‘it’?” What? She’s told her acquaintance thinks he’s trans and decides to interrogate his pronouns? What she SHOULD have done was gone “oh, really?” and then talked about it with her friend AFTERWARDS. Manners, kids, manners.
However, there’s nothing to indicate that a belief in feminism drove her behaviour. If the article said Kelly and her friend had just come from their local neighbourhood NOW meeting, or were carrying signed copies of Gloria Steinem’s new book, OK. But even then, I’d still say it was Kelly’s problem not Feminism’s.
Sex is binary: gender isn’t. The term “non-binary” is essentialist. Everyone knows we don’t do that. So why are we?
Well, he certainly shouldn’t have let his eyes evaporate, at least.
learie #6,
I’m genuinely confused. Did you read the linked article? The whole point of it was to bash feminism.
I do agree that there’s nothing to indicate Kelly was a feminist.
HOWEVER, suggesting to someone that “it” would be appropriate to refer to them is indeed dehumanizing. I agree 100% with the writer on that. The term “it” is used for things. Even with animals, we are often more comfortable with choosing a pronoun randomly rather than calling an animal “it”, because we recognize that they are more than things. Some rare nonbinary people might choose the term, but it is not one that anyone with taste and empathy would suggest for them. Furthermore, when you’ve been told the pronoun of choice, why suggest others? Kelly was rude and I can understand the negative reaction.
I can’t understand blaming it on feminism without some kind of context like “Kelly had been telling us about her activist work…”
In short, what Learie said. (Which was asking about feminism to point out that the original writer was wrong to connect Kelly’s attitude to femininsm. )
On using “it” as a pronoun: there was an incident last year where Dan Savage was giving a presentation to some students and the topic of pronouns came up, and he elicited an objection from one of the students. The exact objection was not over pronouns, but it soon came out that one of the other speakers had used a pronoun for the student based upon their outward presentation when, in fact, the student actually preferred it.
Here’s Dan’s writeup from then. It is somewhat long, but worth plowing through, given all that has happened in the last year.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/06/07/about-that-hate-crime-i-committed-at-university-of-chicago
So apparently even the most dehumanizing pronoun you can think of, is going to be the preferred pronoun of someone, somewhere.
What about people who identify as grammar pedants? How are we shall we include those?
I was thinking while reading that it would be especially laughable if this sort of interaction is what the hyperventilators had in mind when talking about ‘feminist violence’. Then I read on and discovered that what I thought was a flippant thought turned out to be literally true.
___
A note to the ‘my feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit’ crowd. Intersectional feminism means the intersection of e.g. racism with feminism, the intersection of trans bigotry with feminism, income inequality with feminism etc. etc. et fucking cetera.
Aaron Kappel seems quite unable to write a single sentence without using the pronoun ‘I’
He belongs on Oprah.
Hrm. Dunno I’d assume these alleged eyes actually evaporated…
Perhaps more absorbed, in this case? Along with the rest of the self?
But Kappel said they evaporated. I didn’t assume nuffink.
Yes, yes, yes, calling someone “it” or suggesting that someone could use “it” for their chosen pronoun is rude, but we have only Kappel’s version of what Kelly said, and I don’t see Kappel as a reliable narrator, so that’s why I didn’t belabor the point. Ranting and raving about “it” really isn’t the point here.
How about ranting and raving instead about the way Kappel used Kelly as an excuse to vomit all over feminism, without ever saying a single word to show that Kelly is a feminist?
What Holms said @ 12. That. An astonishingly large number of people seem to think “intersectionalism” means – in the case of feminism, and feminism alone – adding other issues to feminism and talking about them instead of talking about women’s issues.
“Maybe that is why I had to use one hand to help lift the other hand, and why I fumbled erratically, wrapping my ankles around the legs of the chair so as not to fall off and into the void below–for the entire room fell away. The floor disappeared and there was nothing but an eternal darkness.”
JFC! The self-absorption is monstrous. I couldn’t read past this paragraph for laughing. My mind started shaking and my leg could think of nothing but “a whiter shade of pale”. Or was it my leg shaking and my mind thinking? who TF knows? Were those pitchers spiked with LSD?
I know, that passage really stands out, doesn’t it. The rubber ankles, the flapping arm, the void under the table – and the self-absorption that made it all happen. What a fun drinking companion this person must be.
As I was reading about Kelly asking about the use of ‘it’ as a pronoun, I too was reminded of Dan Savage’s reported experience regarding this (as MrFancyPants mentioned @10). Maybe Kelly was being an asshole, maybe Kelly made an obnoxious and assholic joke while drunkenly trying to be funny. But IMO its also not completely unlikely she knew of ‘it’ as a possible preferred pronoun and was trying to be inclusive.
My gut reaction to this stuff:
“Maybe that is why my body shook and my breath lost its rhythm; my eyes flooded, then evaporated, and my skin lost all its moisture. ”
Sounds like a caricatured performance of the emotional histrionics (some) men attribute to women (it’s what makes us and our ladybrains useless and unreliable, dontcha know.)
Exactly. Especially that bizarre “my skin lost all its moisture,” which is like a cosmetics ad inserted into a bad Bette Davis impersonation.
The story of Kelly the feminist bully crying seems made up. The story reminds me of the concept of magic words, that if you find a book of magic, and you read and say the magic words, then the words do magic:
But that magic spell, “This isn’t about you,” is not specific to feminism, so Kelly could say the spell at the trans author, and bring them to tears, and make the trans author center theirself as the victim.
Maybe that’s what this whole story is about, who knows.
Oh, so that’s what Bette Davis Eyes are! Steaming eye sockets.
:-)
Re #15, well, I wasn’t so much assuming you were assuming such a thing. But I think I’m just gonna file the whole thing under ‘too-tangled intended wordplay gone wrong’, anyway.
As far as I am aware Aaron Kappel in fact identifies as s feminist. Obviously this article is not about bashing all feminism. Kappel’s piece Reads to me as a critique of one specific type of behavior some feminists engage in and not of feminism at large.
How do you know Kappel “identifies as a feminist”?
In any case feminism isn’t an identity, it’s a political view. Identifying as a feminist doesn’t make one a feminist.
It’s not in the least obvious that this article isn’t about bashing feminism, given the fact that Kappel blames feminism for some transphobia before telling the bar story, and then completely neglects to mention anything feminist about Kelly.
What exactly is this “one specific type of behavior some feminists engage in”? Kappel gives very little detail about what Kelly actually said or did; Kappel mostly reports Kappel’s emotional reaction to Kelly.
Well for starters, the title of the article is “trans exclusionary feminists cannot exclude my humanity” TERFs =/= feminism in general. He never says anything about thinking women are ‘horrible’. I am a feminist cis woman and I am having trouble understanding the motivation for your vitriolic mockery. I find your response to be a pretty bizarre, cruel, and willful misunderstanding.
The title of the article is “trans exclusionary feminists cannot exclude my humanity” – so isn’t it odd that Kappel singles out feminists as the enemy, as opposed to religious bigots, violent drunk men, frat boys, etc?
No, “TERFs” don’t equal feminism in general, but the label is still a way of shitting on feminism and especially radical feminism – the kind that wants more than a few tweaked laws.
The whole piece is about thinking women are horrible. Why single out a woman to complain about?
I don’t follow your logic. If you complain about one woman that means you think all women are horrible?
That’s not what I said.
Also? I don’t believe your claim that you’re a feminist.
Natalie, ignoring the title and looking just at the substance of the article. The unqualified use of feminist/feminism occurs 12 times in the article. It is used once in the form trans-exclusionary, in the final paragraph. If Kappel is making a case in favour of general feminisim being good, but trans-exclusionary being bad, he does a spectacularly poor job of it.
Most of you are missing the distinction between “white feminism” and “feminism.”
Google works for everyone with an Internet connection.
“The whole piece is about thinking women are horrible. Why single out a woman to complain about” I’m sorry please clarify your meaning.
Oh explain us about “white feminism,” Jessica.
The motivations are clearly stated. The piece is abominably written, atrociously self-absorbed, and doesn’t demonstrate what it alleges.
I had to re-read that part a few times to persuade myself it wasn’t a tell, that the piece wasn’t written by an MRA who learned about transgender issues from watching the Silence of The Lambs.
Good point. “It puts the lotion on its skin.”
Twitter commentary from Aaron Kappel.
I replied:
Kappel’s riposte:
Sigh. No, it isn’t. It really isn’t. It’s harsh, but that doesn’t make it violence. A politics that can’t tell the difference is doomed to be a laughingstock.
“What I am speaking about is the violent idea that if gender were not in the equation, there would be vast improvement.”
The Violent, Violent feminists who object to constructed gender.
“when they say we can agree to disagree on some things, they are treating me like a thing, something less-than, something other. This is violence. When cis women debate and discuss the merits of trans inclusion, they are talking about people as if those people are not real. But I am real. I am human. And my existence will never be up for debate.”
Because having any other ideas -other than them’s- about gender is “violence”. Not actual violence though, like the kind from mean, stupid men. The story doesn’t explain how it links to feminism or “cis women”, but by God, he will find a way.
Funny you should mention it – Aaron Kappel is at this moment accusing me of “violence” on Twitter. Insisting on it. Words=violence.
This is not the path to a better world.
Alice Dreger, eh? Good company.
Why doesn’t Kappel just cut to the chase? Anybody who criticizes him or disagrees with him in any way is denying his humanity and committing violence.
That’s that settled.
Right? I’m deeply flattered to be paired with Alice Dreger.
Right, it couldn’t possibly be because their ‘essay’ was a poorly written piece of self pitying dross that flays every feminist who might happen to disagree with their specific wishes. Funnily enough, if Keppel had decided to write a piece centred around something like this:
“Recently I decided/came to the realisation that I was gender non-binary and told my friends that I preferred the pronouns they/them. One of the women I was having a drink with was really rude and kept on at me that using ‘it’ would suffice surely. People, don’t do that. I found it hurtful and unnecessary. etc etc.”
Instead we get a self pitying tirade against feminists and feminism that only once in the conclusion even mentions trans-exclusionary feminism, all on the basis of the reaction of one (probably rude, possibly drunk) women who, as far as we can tell from the ‘essay’ did and said nothing at all related to feminism of any kind.
I think it’s poor form that Keppel’s ‘friend’ was rude to them. Even if you disagree with someone on such issues it is simply not needed to behave that way. Taring every feminist in the world with the same brush on the basis that the person who insulted you was a women is just wrong. Doing it with shitty writing is inexcusable.
I don’t understand why a born-male person who has never identified as a woman or as female, however else they identify, should have any claim on feminism. Full stop.
Exactly. Kappel seems to think that’s what intersectionalism means, and so do a lot of people. They’re wrong.
Postscript. I suspect that “Natalie” @ 25, 27, 29, 33 is actually Aaron Kappel. Kappel was tweeting about this post at that time, and Natalie’s thinking and writing are as crude and clumsy as Kappel’s, plus Natalie takes a surprisingly personal view of the post.
1. I am not Aaron Kappel. 2. You are not the arbiter of my feminism/anyone’s feminism. 3. Kappel was not ‘born male’. 4. Why does the fact that Kappel has been a huge public supporter of a myriad of women and feminist works not mean anything to you? (Roxane Gay anyone?) 5. You all seem like deeply mean and nasty human beings and I don’t believe it’s possible to reason with you at all. I won’t be returning to this thread/your writing. Goodbye.
1. So you say. I trust you realize that this is the internet, so your saying so isn’t conclusive.
3. Who says? How do you know? What do you mean?
4. I don’t know that about Kappel. I googled at the time and found nothing significant.
5. That’s why I suspect you of being Kappel – the intensity of your emotional response.
Uh huh. Some more Googling, a look at Twitter. I still suspect you’re Aaron Kappel.
To be exact – # 4 reeks of you being Kappel.
One, there’s no sign (that I can find) that anyone else knows that much about Kappel or is that interested in Kappel. Two, it’s very like Kappel’s thinking, to word that as if everyone knew all about Kappel – it’s solipsistic in the same way as the post about Kelly.
It’s a dead giveaway. If you want to pass as someone else, you need to do a better job of disguising yourself.
2. Indeed. Ophelia, myself and other commentators are not. That cuts both ways. After all “My feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit” is a means of dismissing political feminism for failing to pay sufficient homage to related causes that are not actually the focus of feminism.
4. Kappel can be judged by his writings. That article was a self-absorbed evidenceless attack on feminism.
Well I guess there’s no way to prove that to you without doxxing myself to a mob of hateful transphobic Internet weirdos. Aaron Kappel’s Facebook is public, I follow it, and he posts the work of feminist women on a pretty regular basis. I’m sorry you do not know how to use a search engine and that you assume anyone who disagrees with you must be the person you are attacking themselves. Other people have empathy. Be well.
*they post (autocorrect)
Oh, so posting the work of feminist women on Facebook=being “a huge supporter” of feminist women? I didn’t realize that was what you meant by being a huge supporter.
As for attacking…Kappel attacked the woman he called Kelly in that piece, didn’t he.
Natalie, here are some points:
– Disagreeing with some (not all) trans activists and supporters about some (not all) issues does not automatically qualify anyone here as hatefully transphobic, let-alone an internet weirdo. (YMMV)
– You have never actually addressed any of the substantive criticisms made about Kappel’s article. Both Kappel and you have claimed he was attacking TEF, but their writing actually repeatedly refers to feminists and feminism without distinction. Further, Kappel draws no link at all between the rude and obnoxious behaviour of one woman and feminism, let-alone TEF. until that is addressed I simply can’t take your objections seriously.
– His writing, on that occasion at least, was poorly done, self centred drivel.
It does make me wonder if Kappel’s behaviour is so consistently over emotional and self centred that Kelly eventually snapped while under the influence and chose to be obnoxious to them. Rude, but human. Maybe they would be better off not being friends and Kappel could have had their tif with her in private and left the feminist straw bashing out of it.
Okay, perhaps I shouodn’t have said “born-male”. If it helps, I can say instead:
I don’t understand why any person assigned-male-at-birth who lived as male for a lifetime and who, even after understanding that this assignment was wrong, never identified as a woman or identified as female, however else they have identified, has any personal claim on feminism. Full stop.
I”m a massive supporter of all kinds of causes, but I don’t feel that means that if those causes don’t take up the issues of my life, that they are letting me down or reacting against me, even reactin violently against me.
Where in Keppel’s life story or current issues is there anything at all about being discriminated against on grounds of being female/a woman?
Got it!! To me, It’s like berating a trade union for not actively working for the rights of someone in a different line of work, because trade unions exist to support workers. Yes, they do, but each union exists to support workers who share a particular relationship to a particular industry’s capitalists, not shared by members of other unions. Everybody (in my analogy) we’re talking about may be working class, but they can’t expect to go to any random union and say “if you don’t fight for me in my workplace, you are wrongfully excluding me, you are demonstrating that you hate me and all the workers like me, and you are in fact acting violently towards me.”