I recently got a troubling call for papers (CFP) for a conference titled "Meet Animal Meat." I'd just ignore it if the only things troubling me about this conference were the title and the CFP's academic doublespeak, which privileges professional academics while making it inaccessible to most everyone else. But what really concerns me is that the conference claims to be "Informed by feminist investigations of embodiment and bodiliness" and goes on to identify Carol J. Adams and Judith "Jack" Halberstam as the keynote speakers. So here is a conference claiming to be "Informed by feminist investigations embodiment and bodiliness" and it's two keynote speakers are both unapologetically anti-transsexual – that is, two cissexist feminists who disrespect the "embodiment and bodiliness" of transsexuals.
I've written about Adams' transphobia before, but it's worth point out again just how Adams disrespects the "embodiment and bodiliness" of transsexual women. In her recounting of a transphobic encounter with Carol Adams, Mirha-Soleil Ross describes how Adams completely disrespected her gender identity and how Adams felt justified in questioning her womanhood. But maybe this is what is meant by "feminist investigations of embodiment and bodiliness" – that is, cissexual feminists subjecting others' "embodiment and bodiliness" to invasive investigations and professional/academic exploitation. After all, there's nothing in the CFP suggesting that others' "embodiment and bodiliness" ought to be respected. On the other hand, the CFP does list "Gender Consumption and Ecofeminism" as a suggested topic. That seems fitting, since Adams obviously engages in gender consumption when she insist that she should be able to take (that is, consume) a transsexual woman's private medical history without that woman's permission and then uses that medical history in an attempt to destroy (again, consume) that woman's gender identity.
Like Adams, Halberstam also disrespects the "embodiment and bodiliness" of transsexuals. Halberstam's cissexism and anti-transsexual views are on display in the film Boy I Am, a film about transsexual men but made for and by cissexual lesbians. In this film Halberstam makes numerous statements about trans men that can only be described as outright transphobia. If the same statements were made about lesbians, especially by an academic straight woman in a film made by straight woman, the film would no doubt have been boycotted by the lesbian community for promoting homophobia. These statements include saying if transsexual men had more sexual experiences with lesbians they might not feel the need to transition and suggesting that trans men are transitioning because they are pressured to do so by other transsexuals. So these statements parallel the logic of homophobia and sound just like those classic homophobic statements that if lesbians just had (more) sexual experiences with men they might not feel the need to be with other women and that lesbians are being pressured by other lesbians. (The filmmaker claims Halberstam's anti-trans sentiments were included in the film specifically to refute them.)
Halberstam's transphobic arguments are real cause for concern. In the context of the film they were explicitly made in support of making hormones and surgery inaccessible to most trans men. Such restricted access to hormones and surgery is most harmful to poor and working-class trans men and trans men of color. That is, White rich/upper-middle-class trans men won't be harmed by such restrictions as much as less privileged trans men. Which is relevant, since the film follows poor/working-class trans men and trans men of color who are struggling to save and raise money for surgery. Halberstam's anti-trans views are not simply cissexist, but go much further by bolstering the intersection of cissexism with classism and racism.
That both Adams and Halberstam are the keynotes of a conference "Informed by feminist investigations of embodiment and bodiliness" is very troubling. The keynotes suggest that the conference is in fact informed by feminist investigations that are based on oppressive concepts of embodiment and bodiliness that are exploitative of others. It's hard to believe that a conference based on a principal underlying theme intertwined with disrespecting transsexuals and rooted in cissexism can possibly be supportive and respectful of the embodiment and bodiliness of other animals.
