Female Supremacy & Gender Identity
• Ambiguously Gendered
For a time part of my personal project in writing about myself was to clarify to myself the importance of atypical gender to me. To share my own celebration of the idiosyncratic fashion in which gender identity and performance can be realized.
Being biologically and socially male I can only really write about those who’ve mattered to me personally: femme guys, my transsexual beloved, self-accepting transvestites. And to share my anger that they’ve often found intolerance not only among the heterosexual, television addicted majority but even from queer men.
Even when it may involve qualities with which I can’t really agree or empathize I’m always happy to be surprised by something fresh.
Victoria Catherine is a transgendered female supremacist, a gynarchist who thinks the world would be a better place if women were the ones with their hands on the levers of power.
She sums up her beliefs clearly:
That humanity as a whole, culture, society, government, and households will be happiest when everyone, female and male alike, accepts the female supremacist belief system, and that a dominant female supremacist society will emerge on earth.
That utopia can not exist, and that the future female supremacist society will not be perfect, but that it will ensure the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. That this transformation from patriarchy to gynarchy is required by the Goddess and impossible to resist now that she has placed a desire for absolute control in the hearts of all females, and a desire for absolute subjugation in the hearts of all males.
Fem Domination / Fem Supremacy
There are women and men who agree. I don’t. But I don’t have an urge to argue against it. I’m not given much to conversations about improving the world: I think we’re all doomed. Nor do I have the scholarship to meaningful engage in a debate on an abstract level.
But having seen female supremacists who refuse to address the fate of gay male couples I’m content that she’s certainly isn’t disapproving of gay men. Or think they’ll vanish in a gynarchy.
What annoyed me the most in the gynosupremacists I found on the web was an unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of transgendered people. It capsized the neat binary they’d established. And gender isn’t merely an off/on switch.
Clearly that doesn’t apply to Victoria. And unlike the other female supremacists she’s good-natured about it. Which isn’t to say that she doesn’t mean what she says.
In response to a request she obliged me by writing about gender identity and female supremacy.
But it was a paragraph not directly about that where she really caught my attention:
I do not define passing, or passability the same way as perhaps most trans people do. It seems to me that most trans people place entirely too much emphasis on never being found out. On being able to enter a large crowd and having no one in that crowd question ones gender. I view passing as something differently entirely. I believe that if one is accepted by the men and the women important in ones life as female, then one is passing as female.
Given the terrible burden transpersons often feel about surface passability I deeply wish that many of them could find a way to internalize that philosophy of fitting in.
The undifferentiated crowd of people we pass through shouldn’t play a role in our self-acceptance. Most of them are tolerating the passing of time by watching television as they head toward their grave.
Many an atypically gendered person would live a happier life if they found it sufficient for their gender to be perceived appropriately by their friends and lovers. Strangers should never have a role in finding self-esteem.
Comments
Two points in response:
It would seem to me that a central theme among gynarchists would be acceptance of male couples; as it would be in their best interests to direct men to other men (regardless of orientation) to satisfy the vast majority of male sexual desires; using men for the gratification of female desires only when the woman desires it, and then only on her terms. The rest of the time, except when being kept in chastity for disciplinary purposes, let each man find his release with another man — all the better to keep the boys tamed! But maybe I’m missing something there…
I agree with your premise that we should not be dependent upon the opinions and responses of others when it comes to being secure and comfortable in our own identity. It’s wonderful if we are accepted without question by most or all of the people we meet; and we can do a great deal if those who are close to us accept us as we are. I would go one step beyond, and say that the best place to be is where you are ok with who you are even if those close to you are not; but perhaps this, too, is only an “ideal” situation.
Thanks.
Posted by: propertyofMj | June 6, 2007 1:53 PM