#killdano

On Twitter I happened upon this tweet thread, which had someone arguing that black women shouldn’t be angry that Michelle Obama was called a transphobic slur, on the basis that the slur implies that transgender people are bad, and in not rejecting that interpretation of the word, you accept that transgender people are bad.

This was backed up by @killdano​, who has in that tweet thread decided to invite people to his Tumblr for longer-length discussion of the subject.

So here’s my contribution to that discussion.

The anger over Michelle Obama being called a transphobic slur has two parts, neither extricable from the other, but I’ll address one of them first because it’s the one the original tweet addressed. It goes something like this: Even if you totally reject the argument that trans people are bad, it’s obvious that it was intended to disparage Michelle Obama by implying that she’s transgender, because the people using the slur believe that being transgender is bad.

I am AMAB transgender myself. I see nothing wrong with being transgender, of course I don’t. But I do acknowledge that my view is not the only view, nor is it even a common view in some circles. I acknowledge that given the preponderance of specifically anti-trans bills being debated (or even passed!) in state legislatures, North Carolina’s being the most prominent, the mere concept of someone being a woman when they were assigned the role of man is seen by a significant portion of society as perverted, antisocial, and a threat to (cisgender) women and (cisgender) children.

That’s the difference. There is a wide chasm of meaning between “don’t call Michelle Obama a transphobic slur because being trans is bad” and “don’t call Michelle Obama a transphobic slur because people think being transgender is bad, including the people using the slur”.

You know how I know they think this? Because we’re talking about people against Michelle Obama using this specific word, which has a dual function: As a marker of identity and as an insult. That’s what a slur is. It uses the identity as the insult, and implies that merely by having that identity, you’re a bad person. It can go in both directions: You either have that identity, so you’re bad; or you’re bad, so you must have that identity.

You can categorically reject the logic of this implication and, at the same time, acknowledge that it’s the intended implication, instead of burying your head in the sand and telling yourself that nobody takes your identity as an insult. Walk down the street and call the next person you see that slur. Go ahead. Call the next ten people you meet that slur. Really try to sell that you perceive them as transgender. See how many take it as a compliment.

That they’re wrong to be insulted doesn’t meaningfully change that they think that it’s insulting. One fact prescribes an ideal state (nobody should believe that being transgender is a bad thing) and one describes the reality (many people do believe being called transgender is a bad thing, so implying they are can function as an insult).

Further evidence for the intent to disparage Michelle Obama comes from the second part of this issue, which is that a common arrow in the quiver of anti-black misogyny is to disparage black femininity and imply that black women are mannish, or men, or masculine, or otherwise not ladylike, a perception commonly aimed at trans women as well.

In fact, it’s already happened during this election cycle:

This is a political cartoon. It’s nakedly in the tank for Donald Trump, like most political cartoons are in the tank for (or against) specific causes and people. And it depicts an exaggeratedly muscular Michelle Obama with a crotch bump, a boxy frame, big feet, and a flat chest against a svelte, curvaceous, buxom Melania Trump with zero muscle tone. It doesn’t take an art major to interpret this as being an attack on Mrs. Obama’s femininity: The argument here, however busted the logic, is that the First Lady is less of a lady than Mrs. Trump, and that’s bad, and we should “make the First Lady great again” by electing someone whose wife is more ladylike.

Ben Garrison either intentionally drew the comic this way to make this argument, or he literally does not understand what he’s drawing, and since he’s a pretty famous political cartoonist, I’m pretty sure he knows what he’s doing at this point.

This is not an insult unique to black women, but it is an insult commonly leveled at black women, and its intent is to function like an insult. This can be pointed out whether you believe it is an insult or not: It’s pretty easy to separate your own opinions from those of others and acknowledge when someone is trying to damage your credibility or character, even if they’re using an insult you don’t yourself perceive as a negative trait. I think Michelle Obama’s got the best-toned arms in the history of First Ladies. I still think it’s insulting to imply she’s got manly arms. 

Whether someone is using an effective tactic (how they specifically attack your character) is irrelevant to identifying their overall strategy (of attacking your character to reduce your approval among others).