But certain men's groups and feminist groups don't like her stance on pornography, and have spread misinformation.
On the other hand, she can't be considered Trans inclusive either, (which makes her an asshole IMO) so while I get her lecture on pornography, what happened a few years back was a lot of controversy brewing in feminist intellectual circles, along with the sex positive movement---while intersexed or Trans people were getting their voice.
The thing about being Trans-- your choices are limited by gender identification. If you are a woman, and wish to be identified as one, there is a certain appearance. My friend-- who is middle aged and is growing out her grey, and is a badass Vietnam Vet, wears a bit of make up wears earrings and dresses in clothes that identify her as female.
Germaine Greer was criticized because in her book " The Whole Woman" she came across as Trans-exclusive, if not actively transphobic. She compounded this by some repulsive article-- I forget where--she wrote. Her premise (if I remember right) revolved around the idea of being female not being about hair, and make up and skirts.
Here's a brief critique of he book, which is very good. For being brief.
It is also in this section Greer tries to rally up feminists not to accept trans people as female, arguing that at the end of the day, trans people can never be female because they do not have the sex chromosomes for it. This argument really surprised me as generally feminists are very pro trans people out of a very simple explanation - feminists believe that gender is a social construct, that is to say that femininities and masculinities are something that we are taught, something we are socialised into, rather than something that is biologically determined. Therefore gender is fluid, and the key issue is what gender someone identifies as, not what they were born as. If someone who was not born biologically female identifies as a female, this person will be female to most feminists. That Greer, who has been one of the most prominent feminists for a long time, would fail to make this separation between sex and gender is just unbelievable. As the book goes on, however, it is not so shocking anymore, as Greer seems to take a more "back to nature" stance with sex and genders, putting much emphasis on woman as a sex and gender as well as gender as a social construct. To me, the extent to which she focuses on the female sex in the first section somewhat contradicts her thoughts on gender in the social later on. But it does raise an important point even though it perhaps does not explicitly say so - the point of the third gender, or rather the lack thereof everywhere but in Australia.
http://feminismandtea.blogspot.com/2011/02/whole-woman-by-germaine-greer.html
And here is an interesting debate on Gail Dines--I selected an excerpt that is well written and very, very angry, to show how the Trans community reacts to being excluded:
(Note the date-- 2009)
I am amazed that after that lengthy discussion of transphobia
as it relates to feminism and to restroom access, that someone
would not only recommend the work of Sheila Jeffreys but term
it "excellent." Sheila Jeffreys is one of the most rabid,
hatemongering transphobic bigots I have ever read. (See some of
her transphobic diatribes in her book Unpacking Queer
Politics.) While we are at it, why don't we also recommend
Janice Raymond and Mary Daly, two additional "radicals" who did
much to drive feminism into the ground with their hate-filled
and offensive diatribes? Calling Sheila Jeffreys as a good
example of radical feminism is like labeling Mary Daly's
Gyn/Ecology as a good example of multicultural feminism. The
good side of that is Audre Lorde's brilliant essay "An Open
Letter to Mary Daly" blew the lid off of the pervasive racism
in radical feminism. In response, Daly unsurprisingly shirked
her own responsibility by blaming racism on the patriarchy.
A noted trans scholar recently stated that, in terms of trans
women in lesbian/gay AND feminist communities, it's time to
call the question. What she meant is that there is NO more
debate about trans women and out lives, identities, and
politics. I repeat, OUR lives are not up for debate. We have
been in feminist and lesbian communities since the beginning,
and we are not going anywhere. Some of us will have surgery and
some won't; that is our choice, and it is not to be
interrogated by "radical" feminists with an ideological axe to
grind.
At a session on lesbian-feminism I attended a few years ago,
one of the participants identified herself as "Dyke-osaur." I
could not think of a better term for the likes of Sheila
Jeffreys and her ilk of transphobic, anti-sex followers, who
seemed trapped in a perpetual 1970s lesbian feminist time
warp. Luckily for a new generation of free-thinking feminists,
as well as older women who have stepped away from such
extremism, feminists like Sheila Jeffreys are rapidly becoming
extinct. I am amazed that people will excuse the work of
bigoted fanatics like Jeffreys, who use their writings to
oppress a minority group which is struggling to survive on
https://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/radicalfem.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
