Home | Introduction | Szasz Materials | Debates | Links/Related Items |
|
The following article is reprinted on the Szasz site by permission of the author.
Dr. Tana Dineen
VANCOUVER - In 1995, Kimberly Nixon volunteered to be a rape
counsellor. Having come out of an abusive relationship with a man, she
wanted to help other women. However, the women's centre turned Nixon
away because "she" had once been "he."
Although Nixon had undergone a sex-change operation and lived 19 years
as a female, she was seen as not quite measuring up to the centre's
definition of "woman." Badly hurt by the rejection, s/he considered
suicide, but instead lodged a Human Rights complaint against the
Vancouver Rape Relief Society. For six years the case wound its way
through the legal process. By the time the hearing ended Feb. 23, the
issue had boiled down to "who is a woman?" The question is not as
simple as it sounds.
Sexual identity in our culture is complex; since the first sex-change
operation in 1952, being female has ceased to be just about female
characteristics and clothing. When Michele Landsberg asked, "If a man
cuts off his penis, pumps himself full of hormones, gets silicone
breasts and electrolysis, and stuffs his feet into high heels is
he/she a woman?" I cringed at the insensitive way she said it.
However, it's not an unreasonable question. I'm not alone, I suspect,
in being puzzled by the Nixon case and wondering whether she is, as
Landsberg suggests, just "someone who wants to be a woman."
The Rape Relief Society is in a difficult position. It has taken a
stand on a topic few of us are prepared to discuss. Christine Boyle,
the law professor who represents the society, is defending it on the
basis that the issue is "not about genitals" but about politics. Since
there is no legal definition of a woman, she argues, Rape Relief is
entitled to have a "political understanding" of what it is that makes
a woman. That understanding is in line with a definition Landsberg has
opted for; that being female is "a political category created through
oppression."
Rape Relief, since it was founded in 1973 as one of Canada's first
women-only centres for female victims of assault, has been a focal
point of feminist political activism, fighting for rape shield laws
and federal anti-violence measures, and trying to influence custody
and access decisions. And, in all of its work with rape victims, Rape
Relief has been teaching the "political belief" that "male violence is
a symptom of a sexist society in which women are oppressed by men. "
In its material and on its Web site, it tells women "what we know to
be the truth" -- that men enjoy positions of power and privilege; are
innately aggressive; are unworthy of trust and must be feared. The
hateful propaganda is so explicit that Lee Lakesman, a staff person at
the society, is quoted as declaring that "every man is a potential
rapist."
This political stance seems to be the essence of all feminist
counseling. Laura Brown, a psychologist who is widely regarded as an
expert in this area, sees our culture to be her ultimate client and
describes the therapeutic task as "the subversion of the patriarchy in
the client ... with the first responsibility always to the project of
ending oppression."
Evidently, this counseling is not so much about kindness and caring as
it is about luring injured and vulnerable women into a supposedly safe
environment where they can be indoctrinated to replace their sense of
what it is to be a woman with this new political image. From this, it
follows that the selection of counsellors, such as those who work at
Rape Relief, is a matter not of gender but of ideology. Nixon was not
rejected so much because she was a transsexual but because she did not
fit the feminist image of who (or what) a woman is. As Rape Relief
staff have stated: "she did not share the same life experiences as
women who are born females and have been oppressed by men."
Obviously, I and countless other women who don't see ourselves as
oppressed victims and insist on seeing men as individuals and equals
-- no better and no worse -- wouldn't fit this image either. The issue
that the tribunal must address is whether individuals like myself and
others are women, or is it that women are those who hold in common a
sense of victim mentality, an unshakable belief in male violence and a
militant dedication to a political cause?
Judy Rebick, the former president of the National Action Committee on
the Status of Women, views Rape Relief to be "a model feminist
service." Testifying at the hearing, she defended its decision by
placing the issue in the broader context of decades of political
activism. Outside of the hearing room, she commented that the question
"goes to the very heart of what the women's movement is and what
feminism is."
If so, then what is at the heart of feminism is not a peaceful mission
to reach out and help other women but rather an aggressive effort to
recruit women as anti-male warriors. In seeking the answer to the
difficult question of "who is a woman," we would be well advised to
ignore the feminist mumbo jumbo about victimhood and oppression and
listen to Helen Reddy's anthem: "I am strong, I am invincible, I am
woman."
Tana Dineen is a psychologist in Victoria, and author of Manufacturing
Victims: What the Psychology Industry is Doing to People.
Thomas S. Szasz Cybercenter
for Liberty and Responsibility:
The Ottawa Citizen
March 16, 2001 Friday FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A17
Copyright
© 1998-2000 by the author of each page, except where noted. All rights
reserved.