>A sense of the world's volatility and artificiality seems to have faded
from contemporary queer and feminist politics, in favour of a plural but
static constellation of gender identities, in whose bleak light equations of
the good and the natural are stubbornly restored. While having (perhaps)
admirably expanded thresholds of 'tolerance', too often we are told to seek
solace in unfreedom, staking claims on being 'born' this way, as if offering
an excuse with nature's blessing. All the while, the heteronormative centre
chugs on. XF challenges this centrifugal referent, knowing full well that
sex and gender are exemplary of the fulcrum between norm and fact, between
freedom and compulsion. To tilt the fulcrum in the direction of nature is a
defensive concession at best, and a retreat from what makes trans and queer
politics more than just a lobby: that it is an arduous assertion of freedom
against an order that seemed immutable. Like every myth of the given, a
stable foundation is fabulated for a real world of chaos, violence, and
doubt. The 'given' is sequestered into the private realm as a certainty,
whilst retreating on fronts of public consequences. When the possibility of
transition became real and known, the tomb under Nature's shrine cracked,
and new histories -- bristling with futures -- escaped the old order of 'sex'.
The disciplinary grid of gender is in no small part an attempt to mend that
shattered foundation, and tame the lives that escaped it. The time has now
come to tear down this shrine entirely, and not bow down before it in a
piteous apology for what little autonomy has been won.
I took the time to actually parse all that out into meaning and I almost agreed but she said "When the possibility of transition became real and known", but it isn't real, so she lost me.