Why Feminists Should Accept Transwomen as Women
| December 30th, 2005Expect light posting from me until 2006 - I’m just too busy to spend a lot of time on “Alas.” But I wanted to point out this excellent discussion of transwomen and feminism, which took place in Feministe’s comments, mostly between three writers I respect a lot: Piny, Emma of GenderGeek, and Tekanji of Shrub.com. Tekanji, in particular, did a wonderful job of arguing that a definition of “women” that includes transwomen is compatable with, and desirable for, feminism.
From Tekanji’s final post on that thread:
But, part of what I see as a gender democracy is that it focuses on adding to existing definitions, not taking away. Just because I choose to work outside of the home and not have children does not make some other woman’s choice to become a stay-at-home mom any less valid, right? In that same regard, the ability for a transwoman to call herself, and be seen as, a woman should not invalidate the womanhood of women-born-women.
Also, on the “helping our cause” area, I disagree. I think that in order to get society* to a place where the transgendered (et, al) are accepted - be they woman-identifying, man-identifying, neither or both - is to get to a place where a person’s choice is not seen as genderdized. In that way, I see the struggle of women-born-women and the transgendered (et, al) to be one and the same: we all want the same opportunities, rights, and freedoms as men-born-men have traditionally have, as well as the ability for the traditonally “feminine” to be seen as something of equal value so that men-born-men can aspire to it, too. If “masculine” and “feminine” were seen as equal, then I am quite sure that the gender binary wouldn’t be nearly as important as it is now. […]
I don’t believe having a less strict (more mutable, more inclusive, etc) definition of “woman” necessitates the eradication of the subtleties of the current defintion. We already have a diverse set of people who fit under the word “woman”, we already need specific subsets to deal with their distinct needs, so what’s adding yet another subset onto that in order to help alleviate the oppression of some of our sisters?
That last paragraph in particular does a wonderful job of putting into words something I’ve thought about this question for years. Like Tekanji, I’ve long been disturbed by a strong streak of transphobia among some feminists; that was a major reason I grew disenchanted with the late, great Ms. Boards.
There’s more good stuff in the discussion at Feministe, so I’d recommend reading the whole thing.
December 30th, 2005 at 2:19 am
Over twenty years, I changed my opinion on transpeople considerably.
When I first became aware that transwomen and transmen existed (sometime in my teens) my view was simply that they were not (and could not be) anything but the gender they were born in. A transwoman, I thought as a teenager, was a man who had had surgery and hormone treatment.
Gradually I changed my mind: I met trans people, a close friend came out to me as trans MtF, and various other things happened. It took 20 years, I think, but I do now think that a transwoman is a woman, and a transman is a man, albeit with a rather different history and background.
But one thing I always thought: that discrimination against transwomen by feminists and lesbians, banning transwomen from women-only space, was just plain wrong. Even when I thought that a transwoman was “really” a man, I accepted that when a man has decided to live as a woman, to the extent of hormone treatment and surgery, rejecting this person from women-only space is nothing but cruelty. (Further, it is bigotry based on how people look - since it’s not possible to conduct chromosome tests at the door.) And refusing to call a transwoman “she” and “her” is just rudeness, and unacceptable.
I have a twenty-plus year history of thinking about trans issues, and if you asked me what I thought of trans people over the twenty years, I’d have given you a different answer depending when you asked. But cruelty, bigotry, and rudeness have never been acceptable to me, and I would always have opposed banning transwomen from women-only space for those reasons alone.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 4:23 am
I’ve been thinking about this issue a lot as well and much of what I’ve read from radical fems is not transphobic, they simply don’t believe that women-born-women and mtf share the same experiences because women-born-women and mtf’s were socialized from birth differently. There is also this idea that kept popping up that some men feel so entitled that they think that they can steal women’s experiences and colonize them as their own. It was also compared to blackface. I’m still working through what I think about this matter, but I do think that it’s dishonest to call them phobic. Most of them, from what I’ve read, do not hate mtf’s, they critique what they believe is a function of male privilege.
This comment was written by jessant.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 6:55 am
jessant said:
There is also this idea that kept popping up that some men feel so entitled that they think that they can steal women’s experiences and colonize them as their own.
That is saying that transwomen are the same as men. They’re not. They’re women, and like other women, they have come from different places of power. Just because I once had heterosexual privilege, should I be denied access to a queer space now that I ID as bi/pan?
I haven’t read all that much from other radical feminists, but the article that Feministe linked flat out denied that transwomen were “real” women. Furthermore, on my blog one commenter denied the possibility that women could oppress the transgendered because it would turn us into the “oppressor class” (which makes me wonder what her take is on racist, homophobic, classist, etc. feminists who come from positions of power in those areas), and that transwomen are, and always will be, the “oppressor class” (ie. men).
Also, if you can’t tell, I take issue with using the term “oppressor class” because, to me, that implies active participation. I see men (and whites, and heterosexuals, and able-bodied people, etc) as privileged, because they (we) are accorded certain privileges that minority groups are not, and furthermore that can and is used to oppress those without the privilege. But not all people do it actively. Indeed, I’d argue that most privileged people (including myself) participate mostly or solely in a passive way, rather than going out to “oppress” people.
And, in terms of other writings, I don’t remember exactly who said these things (I once knew, but it wasn’t an important enough detail to keep in my brain), I’ve heard of terms like “gender traitor” and “spy for the patriarchy” be used for transmen and transwomen, respectively, by a feminist or two.
All that is pretty transphobic in my book.
This comment was written by tekanji.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 8:06 am
I just got done reading through all the comments over at Feministe and Shrub.com, and I just wanted to offer kudos to Piny, Tekanji, and Thomas. You three were impressive and eloquent, and I’m learning quite a lot from watching this debate continue to unfold. Thank you.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 8:15 am
I’ve always thought that the argument that a MtF isn’t and can’t be a “real woman” because of different socialization and experiences growing up was spurious and reactive.
Whose socialization “counts” towards their being a “real woman?” There must be hundreds of ways that our socialization and experiences growing up differ, and while gender is a useful analytical lens, it is always tinted by other aspects of experience: race, class, ethnicity, location, physical ability, religion, sexual orientation, political perspective of the family, family structure, intelligence, appearance, social skill level…just to name a few.
What makes the experience of being in the wrong body growing up qualitatively different from any of those other tints to the gender lens?
IMO, nothing.
Plus, it has always seemed to me that one of the core values of feminism is the right of self-determination and the power to identify one’s self as one chooses. In the earliest stages, that may have been both as a woman and a voter or a woman and a public speaker. It evolved to woman and athlete, woman and engineer, woman and in love with another woman, woman and, woman and….
I admit, it’s hard for me to imagine how one could be so convinced that they were born into the wrong body that they would need to have that body altered in such a fundamental way.
But there are a lot of things in the world that are obviously real, even though I don’t get them. Again, trans identity is no qualitatively different.
This comment was written by Liza.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 8:16 am
The thing here is that so many “traditional” boundaries are now gray. We used to have straight and queer - now that queer is becoming more acceptable, many people are fessing up to really being bisexual. People used to identify as black, white, native, asian, etc - now most of my friends identify as what we all have been all along - mutts.
My sister and I are both half Native American, but neither one of us have any real knowledge about the culture. However, every time I want to go to a native gathering, I practically have to bring along a box of documents to prove my ancestry, because other than my extremely dark hair, I look like my swedish father. My sister, on the other hand, is a near identical copy of our full-blooded Iroquois great-grandmother. I understand that because of my appearance, I have a great deal of priveledge that my sister does not. But it doesn’t make me any less part of that heritage. And I would really like to be more in touch with it, but it is very difficult for me to get past that “but you don’t look native!!!” beginning.
I imagine it is much the same for transpeople, or bisexuals in a hetero-relationship, or african-americans who can pass as white, or anyone really on the borderlines between our binary definitions. Most of us NEED an identity, especially with a group of some kind, but for those of us who aren’t really in any particular camp, it can cause quite alot of needless strain and suffering.
Transwomen are women. They are women with certain priveledges, yes, but they also have their own unique oppression. For one, they could certainly be enlightening for both men-born and women-born, and especially the biological determinists camp, about the claims feminists have been making for so many centuries. The oppression of women has more roots in culture than in biology - what can prove this more than the treatment of those women who are not biologically women???
But more importantly, transwomen are women because that is how they choose to live. Most have taken drastic, mostly permanent life-impacting steps to validate this choice (they could stop taking hormones, but wouldn’t everyone still remember that they had taken them???) and this is not something that men do lightly in a culture that is so denigrating of things so ephemerally feminine as pastels and reading. Do not make light of such things - just as they cannot understand what it is to grow up female, you can not understand what it is to choose to go against everyone you may know, love or care about to do something that makes you less in everyone’s eyes.
This comment was written by magikmama.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 8:47 am
Jessant, you don’t have to come out and say ‘transpeople are a travesty againt nature’ to be transphobic. Saying that transwomen’s behavior stems from male privilige is basically saying that transwomen are men in disguise, and deciding that transwomen are really men in disguise is quite enough to earn you that title.
This comment was written by Imagynne.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 8:49 am
Dammit, I misspelled “privilege”. I can’t *tell* you how much I hate it when I do that.
This comment was written by Imagynne.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 9:29 am
From a radical feminist perspective I do think it is important to acknowldege that some transwomen will have experienced male privilege — much in the same way that I’ve had to acknowledge the snippets of male privilege that I have had thrown my way for my previous butch appearance. My goal, as a radical feminist, is not to cordon women off into an impermeable class in an attempt to keep us safe or to let us “heal.” Most specifically I’m interested in disecting aspects of society, especially patriarchal norms and misogyny, that affect the well-being and quality of life for all women. I do not have a problem with including transwomen within the rubric of “woman”. I do however have a deep theoretical problem with how the transgender political movement frames gender. IOW, transsexuality seems natural to me; transgenderism not at all. I do not see gender as an individual act/choice or performance, if you will. It is a social structure that is imposed on an individual based on physical markers that have been ascribed social value *before* the individual is even born. Gender is one of the ultimate signs and tools of hierarchical power [i.e., patriarchy]. It is a social system, not an individual act/choice, that designates social worth to an individual, whether that worth be physical, mental, spiritual, emotional, etc. The problem that I see with transgender politics is that gender is viewed as mutable and wholly of an individual nature… which is a very creative and unique approach to gender. However, I think it is problematic from a feminist POV because it ignores the socially laden implications of being gendered in the first place. It ignores the vast majority of people who are gendered into a power structure that benefits one “half” and assigns negative values to the other “half.” IOW, I think it is important not to lose sight of who ultimately does benefit from us being gendered, and how gender is enforced — largely to the detriment of women, to include transwomen.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 9:36 am
>>The problem that I see with transgender politics is that gender is viewed as mutable and wholly of an individual nature… which is a very creative and unique approach to gender.>>
I have to think a little more about this–you know, so I can offer arguments that are better than, “Nuh uh!”–but I don’t think this is exactly how transgender politics* sees gender. Performance can be an important political act, but advocating gender autonomy isn’t exactly the same as believing that gender is free or that freedom of _gender_ expression means that you should be allowed to treat other people like shit in gendered ways.
*That is, the variety of trans and trans-interested theorists, activist, and writers who have formulated a diverse set of opinions about how transsexuals, transgender people, and gender variance fits into society at large.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 9:37 am
magikmama,
I think you hit the nail on the head when it comes to my own feelings about the inclusion/exclusion of transwomen from feminist discussions. And having known at least two trans individuals in my life, I can say that their experiences of patriarchy and its opression are unique.
I have in impassioned dislike for the silencing of the voices of the oppressed, even within the feminist community.
I myself am a bisexual woman in a hetero marriage. I came out late in life due to my family’s religious beliefs, but my partner is totally accepting of who I am, even as that view changes.
I think there is much more “gray” in this world than “black/white” (insert binary pair of your choice), and those gray areas are causing confusion as we try to apply the historical “normative” ideologies to the variations inherent in any group.
Transwomen are as much women as those that are woman-born, but their experiences and viewpoints are no less valid. Rather than silence their voices, I would rather listen and learn from their unique and different view of patriarchal oppression.
Just my opinion.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Hey piny: I was just reading what you wrote on the other thread about rad fems and trans politics and I was hoping you would write more. Can you expand a little on what you were saying above? My exposure to transgendered politics has been from personal IRL experience, what I’ve seen on message boards, and a few books (Judith Halberstam). It is certainly not a broad exposure, so some of what you wrote above, specifically in writing “how… gender variance fits into society at large” is interesting to me. My feminist background would argue/assume that the majority of women are gender variant and that to be women, period, in this society is an act of gender variance.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:28 am
Q Grrl, I think your comments about gender as performance are really interesting. Judith Butler, the feminist philosopher that many identify as one of the founding writers of queer theory has written quite a bit about her frustration with the various misreadings of her stuff on performativity and gender. Here’s a link to excerpts from an interview where she talks about it a bit:
This comment was written by dorktastic.http://www.theory.org.uk/but-int1.htm
Most trans people that I know, both IRL and online have no interest in Butler or Halberstam, but I think that is sometimes reflective of differences between people who identify as genderqueer or transgender as an umbrella term for gender variant people of all kinds, and transsexual (not like there are any hard and fast distinctions, and there are lots of people who are both transsexual and genderqueer).
Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Yeah, I agree about Butler being misinterpreted, specifically if one hasn’t read her essays on hegemony and universality. Halberstam I like b/c I recognized myself in her writing.
I personally don’t hold that gender is a performance; but I would say that the majority of the transgendered individuals that I meet hold this to be a basic tenant of their lives. It’s hard to argue that point without coming across as phobic.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:39 am
Q,
I empathize with your suspicion of individualist politics. But I think transpolitics go well beyond your description–gender ‘performance’ is a political act that profoundly reacts to the structures of gender oppression you describe.
Such performance, on its own and even cumulatively, however, I think does little to alter the gender system we know. Of course, I recognize that a lot of what I do to fight back against gender oppression (flipping of street harassers, calling out rape-culture crap on blogs, etc) has similarly limited impact on the big picture. But that’s not a reason to condem it. Its a reason to get together and a chance to think up new political projects that might make big changes.
Feminism has always been about women–all women. But at its best it is also about more than women.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:40 am
“Tenet,” Qgrrl. Not “tenant.”
Normally I wouldn’t care, but I don’t want another protracted “confuse-the-lawyer” fest like we had yesterday. Ahem. :p
[ducks to avoid flung coffee mug]
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Sorry for being a bit oblique. I also wanted to argue that we should be talking about including not only transwomen but transmen and *even* biomen in conversations that can move past “feminism: good or bad?” “women: liars or whores?”
All of these folks have important things to add to conversations about the way in which gender hierarchy punish the vast majority of human things and build opression at the most intimate levels.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:45 am
>>My exposure to transgendered politics has been from personal IRL experience, what I’ve seen on message boards, and a few books (Judith Halberstam). >>
Depends on which message boards. Lots of transpeople, but by no means all, have a complicated relationship with Halberstam. I think she’s brilliant, but she makes me feel used.
>>My feminist background would argue/assume that the majority of women are gender variant and that to be women, period, in this society is an act of gender variance. >>
I’m not sure this will make any sense, but:
I’m not comfortable with this elision. It’s true that our society divides people into men and not-men, i.e. women. Women are the variant gender and men the default. But I would differentiate between that and being gender variant within your proscribed role. Phyllis Schlafly is very different from Lisa Vogel.
On one level, _everyone_ is gender variant, because gender is an inhuman, inhumane abstract that doesn’t really describe any of us. The role women are expected to fill is more dehumanizing and less humane; tradition doesn’t really see them as people at all. But there are people who buck convention to various degrees, in the face of different consequences, and in markedly different ways. I would argue that to be a feminist–or a pro-feminist man by ginmar’s standards–is to be gendervariant in that sense. There’s also the issue of how gendervariance is more permissible in some contexts than in others. I mean, Ann Coulter is the antithesis of June Cleaver, but she is still rewarded by remarkably sexist people.
Transwomen are gender variant in that they, y’know, transitioned. They are the second sex as well, and they suffer from being expected to fit into an especially inhuman, inhumane position. As a transsexual, I too am gendervariant. However, I now belong to the default class and receive male privilege. _And_ some transpeople are sexist and married to traditional gender roles, while some are feminist. Some pass completely, and some are incongruent in their post-transition gender. And they benefit and suffer accordingly.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Heh.
I *knew* that didn’t look right.
Q
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:47 am
>>I personally don’t hold that gender is a performance; but I would say that the majority of the transgendered individuals that I meet hold this to be a basic tenant of their lives. It’s hard to argue that point without coming across as phobic. >>
I’d be curious to see how you read this argument. I’ve seen it interpreted–and, actually, refashioned for new viewpoints–in a bunch of ways. Are you including transsexual in transgendered here?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:51 am
I’m not sure we’re saying vastly different things, are we? My biggest comparison is the trans scene in my town where gender variance often means an uber-role playing of butch-femme dynamics. I don’t know that many MTF’s, mostly trannie bois and FTM’s. So I don’t know that I *see* what they are doing as variant. Maybe that’s what I’m getting hung up on; the word variant. Is androgyny variant? Femme? Butch? And what is it variant in relationship to?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:53 am
No, I see transsexuality and transgenderism as two separate politics and lived realities, with some crossover.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 11:02 am
>>My feminist background would argue/assume that the majority of women are gender variant and that to be women, period, in this society is an act of gender variance. >>
There’s another thing related to this line of reasoning–not that you’re making it here or that most feminists do this–that makes me want to throw something. It goes a little something like this:
Transsexual: I was miserable for a large portion of my life because I didn’t fit into my gender. I didn’t feel comfortable in my body.
Transphobic Feminist: We understand completely. We’re women. We didn’t feel comfortable in our genders either. We wanted to be boys when we were growing up, and do boy things.
Transsexual: No, but that’s not why–
Transphobic Feminist: Everyone suffers from gender dysphoria.
Transsexual: Look, gender ROLES are different from–
Transphobic Feminist: All we need to do is create a society without sexism, and you people will cease to exist.
Transsexual: You know what? Never mind.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Maybe not.
>>My biggest comparison is the trans scene in my town where gender variance often means an uber-role playing of butch-femme dynamics. >>
We have some of that here. The problem is that queer women can get a partial picture because mtfs tend not to be welcome in practice, unfortunately, and all the queer male-oriented bois who _aren’t_ interested in a butch/femme dynamic go elsewhere. Although I and other transguys have been assumed to be masculine and/or interested in butch/femme just because we are ftm.
I would argue that a butch dyke, however sexist, is gendervariant in that she probably reads as a woman doing traditionally male stuff. I would argue that an ftm, however sexist, is gendervariant in that he’s undergone a sex change. But sexism does mean that you support an oppressive, conformist system.
>>No, I see transsexuality and transgenderism as two separate politics and lived realities, with some crossover. >>
Hm. I’m not sure I know what–or rather, who–”transgenderism” describes. “Transsexual” is a condition, but transgenderism seems a little looser. I also know a lot of transsexuals who do describe themselves as transgender. What political views besides gender as performance do you see as specifically transgender rather than transsexual?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 11:19 am
Piny: I understand how your narrative becomes one of transphobia, but why can’t the first two instances be ones of communal understanding?
Most of the transgender politics that I see are really as I described above… a throw back in many ways to very traditional 40’s and 50’s butch/femme dynamics, with the emphasis on gender being an individual choice and that the root of gender transgression is assuming roles that a diametrically opposed to the social gender they were assigned at birth. Most of these women identify as bois. And around here, boi almost specifically means someone who has not transitioned and probably won’t. Not sure if this clarifies anything or not.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 11:55 am
>>Piny: I understand how your narrative becomes one of transphobia, but why can’t the first two instances be ones of communal understanding?>>
Sure, as long as there’s understanding that the two situations aren’t exactly the same.
The feminist is talking about being uncomfortable because she was oppressed. She wanted to do “boy things” because they were the things that the privileged children got to do: play interesting games, have interesting adventures, receive approving attention. No one’s identity is congruent with being used, slighted, and fucked over all one’s life. Had the transwoman been allowed to grow up female, she would have likely been as pissed off and jealous as the feminist. Had the woman been treated like a human being, she probably wouldn’t have cared too much that her brother also got to climb trees.
The transsexual isn’t talking about being uncomfortable because of oppression, although his or her story does contain transphobic constraint. Transmen don’t transition because they want to do boy things, but because they’re men. This argument tends to cast gender dysphoria as a problem of sexism, one which will be solved when sexism disappears. That doesn’t match up with my experience. I know lots of deeply feminist, deeply fuck-gender transpeople. They firmly believe that gender roles are bullshit, and they act out that politic in daily life. However, they are as interested in and as desperate for physical transition as the transsexuals who are invested in gender roles.
>>Most of the transgender politics that I see are really as I described above… a throw back in many ways to very traditional 40’s and 50’s butch/femme dynamics, with the emphasis on gender being an individual choice and that the root of gender transgression is assuming roles that a diametrically opposed to the social gender they were assigned at birth. Most of these women identify as bois. And around here, boi almost specifically means someone who has not transitioned and probably won’t. Not sure if this clarifies anything or not.>>
It does, actually. I’m about to describe something that’s one big identity clusterfuck, so apologies if this doesn’t make much sense. Where I live, transition is kind of a variable thing; physically and internally, a matter of degree. This is one of the only places where you can live liminally, so people don’t always choose sides. I don’t think I’ve heard boi used to describe an uncomplicated transguy, but I have heard it used to describe people who take hormones, have surgery, and live at least some of the time as male. Boi tends to describe people who have contact with the queer female/female-bodied community, but it doesn’t necessarily mean butch-femme. A lot of bois and transmasculine people prefer to date each other. I think, too, that butch-femme here is mutating away from the classic version, in part because bois and ftms are read in a different way than butches. I see a lot of couples who seem to almost have a mommy-boy thing going. Most of the femmes I know are also definitely not interested in being queer June Cleavers.
As far as confusing acting-out with switching sides…That’s definitely true of some people. But I don’t think that there are too many people here who have such a simplistic view of transgression.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
I just want to pop in and extend my thanks to you all. I’m learning a lot here. I’m quite upfront about my ignorance regarding trans issues, and this ignorance informed my beliefs (I used to ascribe to some of the notions about trans people–for example, a MTF being a man with hormone treatments and an operation, for example). The more I learned about the issue, the less sure I was about my assertions.
And really, this thread has me thinking I’ve got a whole new subject for book collecting/reading for the next few months. (Anyone who wants to give me suggestions should feel free to share them with me via email. I’m going away for the next week and won’t be able to check the thread.)
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
This thread is wonderful. Thank you all very much. And now I have a lot of books to add to my reading list, too.
This comment was written by winna.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Piny: thanks for your answers. I have more than a shite load of work to do before the long weekend and the hints of a nasty cold. I hope this thread survives the weekend.
Can you point out some good sources for transsexual politics? Other than you? :)
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Wow, I can see why Amp respects you Piny, you’ve really nailed what I find troubling about a lot of the stuff I’ve read about mtfs. There’s so many variations and experiences that its hard to ascribe a motive or an impulse to why people become mtfs of ftms or bois. Some trans-women are really invested in the gender binary but not all are, as you said. And mtfs are doing something I also think is quite brave, they’re giving up their male privilege. I wish more men would do that, the world would be a better place. I’m a genderfucker myself, I do it because I also think gender roles are bullshit, as well.
I was wondering if either of you, Piny or Q-girl have read what Levey wrote about bois and trans-men in her book Female Chauvinist Pig and how your experiences deviate or match up with it?
This comment was written by jessant.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Q-grrl,
Sorry to hear it. I hope your health improves.
It’s hard to recommend stuff because every book that nails something contains some passage or chapter I have huge problems with. For example, Sex Changes is mostly brilliant, but Patrick Califia says some dumb things about being a woman under patriarchy. Gender Outlaw is mostly fascinating, but I agree with some of Califia’s complaints. Trans Liberation is mostly awesome, but I agree with some feminist critiques of it, etc. I loved The Empire Strikes Back, by Susan Stryker, which is an essay in response to The Transsexual Empire. transacademics.org is a sleepy board, but they have some neat discussions going on. There are transpeople communities on livejournal (I think there’s a transfeminism community), so you can do some searching. Most of them are practice and theory. I’ll ask my friends if they can’t come up with other stuff.
>>I was wondering if either of you, Piny or Q-girl have read what Levey wrote about bois and trans-men in her book Female Chauvinist Pig and how your experiences deviate or match up with it?>>
I read that chapter, and have read some of the book. I agree with her central premise–that sexualization is not sexual autonomy, and that some people seem confused on this point–and understand that ftms and bois make up a brief chapter in a book that’s about, y’know, women. Still, for fuck’s sake.
She claims that transitioning has become (I may be paraphrasing slightly) “so widespread as to be faddish.” She has a great deal of evidence to believe that people, queer women in particular, fear this and believe it to be true. It’s certainly true that transition is more common than it was when it was virtually impossible. She has no reason to believe that transition is a hot new trend, or any reason to believe that it’s _too_ common, and she doesn’t cite any numbers at all.
She also based her ideas about ftms on an interview with exactly one ftm, IIRC. That’s like using any given lesbian (possibly Susie Bright) to form opinions about all lesbians (including Sarah Hoagland). She took a very heteronormative view of bois, which was disappointing, and she accepted the lone transsexual’s statement that you can draw a thick black line between “boi” and “ftm,” which a lot of people in both groups dispute. She decided that “bois” became bois because they didn’t want to be adults. I also recall a discussion on an ftm livejournal community about her article, “Where the Bois Are,” much of which found its way into this book. Most of the commenters were extremely disappointed by her language and her limited portrayal. One commenter said that a friend of his who was interviewed in the article had done a snarky, sarcastic impression of a stereotypical boi that was then quoted as though in propria voce.
All in all, I wasn’t terribly happy with it.
I’ll just say that I know a lot of feminist ftms and bois. I know a lot of ftms and bois who don’t feel compelled to present that kind of stereotypical brittle masculinity, but I don’t think it’s fair to see that as an act of courage on their part. Basically, we’re like everyone else: when we feel safe and comfortable being gendervariant, we are. When we have role models that aren’t traditional, we feel no need to be traditional ourselves. When our community doesn’t condone woman-hating, we don’t.
Although I think that critiquing misogyny is always a good thing, I’m bothered by critiques that read sexism among bois, butches, and ftms as a special phenomenon or something especially related to transition–or a new thing, considering that butches have been around for a long time. It’s how people behave when they live under patriarchy. Their sexism isn’t much different from that of other men.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Oops. Sandy Stone was the author of The Empire Strikes Back.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Levey bothered me because the impression you get from her portrayel of bois and trans-men was that these women were fleeing from their own gender to take on male privilege, and it’s even more damning if you look at it in the context of the book, which is basically arguing that some women are trying to take on more power by stepping on the backs of other women by accepting sexism and women-hating.
Thanks for your answer Piny.
This comment was written by jessant.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
I was hesitant to post that article at all, but I’m so glad I did. When the hell are you getting your own blog, Piny?
This comment was written by Lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
>>Levey bothered me because the impression you get from her portrayel of bois and trans-men was that these women were fleeing from their own gender to take on male privilege, and it’s even more damning if you look at it in the context of the book, which is basically arguing that some women are trying to take on more power by stepping on the backs of other women by accepting sexism and women-hating.>>
Yes, exactly! And don’t get me wrong, ftms get male privilege by transitioning. (There was a discussion of this on livejournal some months back, and one commenter wrote, “People assume I’m competent now!”) And bois _definitely_ receive a kind of male/masculine privilege in queer circles that are sexist. But that doesn’t mean either that we understand that when we do cost/benefit analyses, or that we transition because of it.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
My head hurts. In a good way. For once, a high-quality, non-trolled discussion. I admit I am low on theory, high on practical issues, and tend to pay more attention to physical/medical issues dt my medical/scientific orientation. I am still on Trans 101, trying to stretch my imagination to understand what the various trans experiences are to transpeople, since I have always accepted my female body, and what I object to are attempts to make me conform to restrictive gender expectations. In other words, I am a typical woman-born-woman feminist, and have been politically active in the usual feminist causes, mostly reproductive rights, chosen for professional and political reasons.
What I have heard from here and from transfolk IRL is that trans identity is existential. They just “know” they are the gender opposite to their birth assignment. Which calls into question how non-trans people “know” they are the gender congruent with their birth assignment. It isn’t as logical as looking down at your privates and looking at pictures labelled “male” and “female”, and deciding which one you look most like. Children form gender identity earlier than they develop rational thinking. Trans folk disprove the 100% nurture thesis that parents decide at day one and start dressing the baby in pink or blue and treating the baby as sugar and spice or puppy dog tails. Some portion of personality (or spirit, if spiritually inclined) resists the outside categorisation from early childhood. This sense of dislocation, and the resistance, seem also to be the theme of many lesbian and gay childhoods, seen in retrospect when those children grow up.
I have always felt gendervariant, in that the mental/spiritual “me” felt non-gendered or androgynous, and this mental/spiritual “me” just happened to reside in a typical female body. The body isn’t incongruent, it just doesn’t tell the whole story. I have experienced some distance from my body in that despite my intellectual affiliation with feminism and lgbt rights, familial and social pressures (and endogenous depression) kept me from exploring any sexual orientation other than heterosexual, and I have known since early teens that I can’t be sexually heterosexual, even if I could be feminine for public purposes.
Forgive my wool-gathering, which is neither political nor theoretical.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
>>However, based on my experiences with those in the trans community and my (admittedly limited) reading of trans literature, there does seem to be some overwhelmingly common ideas and beliefs that go against my very core beliefs about the world and feminism.>>
Which ones have you encountered?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
Kind of a link dump, but most of these address trans politics or identity in interesting and pretty accessible ways:
Emi Koyama has some interesting things to say about trans feminism, her readings are here: http://eminism.org/readings/index.html
I enjoyed Jay Prosser’s “Second Skins” a lot, although it’s very much an academic text, so although it’s fairly accessible it’s not a very good introduction.
Raven Kaldera has also written a number of interesting pieces, unfortunately his own listing of his writings isn’t up at the moment, but there are a set of pieces on Scarlet Letters that are good: http://www.scarletletters.com/current/nonfic.html
“The Empire strikes back” by Sandy Stone is hosted here: http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~sandy/empire-strikes-back
And the ever useful suggested rules for non-trans people writing about trans people are here, they’re actually more interesting then they might sound initially, as there’s a bunch of discussion\information around each rule:
http://www.transfeminism.org/nontrans-rules.html
On a lighter note, Trainwreck’s spoken word stuff is moving and really very funny (at least if you’re trans or immersed in particular segments of the dyke community, perhaps less so if you’re not.) In the context of discussing bois I kind of want to suggest her piece “Estrogen made me a boy” from here: http://www.trainwreckspokenword.com/
I also wanted to echo Piny’s post about how important physical transition can be (although there are of course trans people to whom it’s less important.) I transitioned largely as a result of feelings about my body- those huge decisions were made on the basis of what were in some ways very nebulous, although very strong, beliefs that my body was wrong for me in some fundamental sense and that feminising my body would help resolve some of those feelings. Much of the discussion of trans issues (on both sides) fails to address that deep seated sense of wrongness very well, ending up with unhelpful cliches like “an a in a b’s body” or flatly disregarding the validity of trans identity in the way that much Radical feminist thought on the subject does.
This comment was written by Tarn.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
Ah, for the world of Varley’s Steel Beach
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
Do you believe that BDSM and feminism are essentially incompatible? If so, why?
This comment was written by Diana.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
i’m a trans woman. i don’t believe that i have an “identity”. i never “knew” that i was the gender opposite to my birth assignment. i lived as a man for 40+ years, and it never worked for me, and just became worse as i grew older. for me, it was about how i feel most congruent (or really, how i imagined how i’d feel most congruent) with regard to how i interact on an intimate basis, and how i prefer to express myself on a social level.
i don’t believe in “gender identity”, at least in my own self-context. as i see it, “gender identity” involves the need to know what it “feels” like to be both male and female, such that one can say that they don’t “feel” male and instead “feel” female. since i only know what it “feels” like to be me, i can’t claim that i always “felt” female. frankly, i don’t know that i ever “felt” male either. perhaps the only feeling i do know is what it is to be transsexual.
even though i have undergone gender reassignment surgery, have been on hrt for close to 6 years, and have had well over 100 hours of electrolysis, i’m still in the same body i’ve always been in. a few things have changed for sure, but it’s not like i feel, or have ever felt, like i was “born in the wrong body”. since this is the only body i’ve had, it’s the only “feeling” i know. i don’t understand how anyone can “feel” that they’re in the “wrong” body, without ever have experienced being in another body.
while i can imagine what it might feel like to be in a different body, and wish that i’d been born into a different body, i can’t know these things. and this may seem like splitting hairs to some, but i think it speaks to the whole idea of “gender identity”, and the very language, along with the limitations therein, we use to speak of these issues.
This comment was written by nexy jo.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
i have to say, this has turned out to be an amazingly enlightening discussion. My head is spinning. I consider myself relatively informed about transgendered issues (well, lets say at least in comparison to the general public, and maybe in comparison to the general GLB community.. though neither is saying much really) and i’m learning a lot here.. damn i have a lot more to learn.
If this is going to be the caliber of threads without anti-feminists, I’d say bring more of them. please.
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
What is/are “bois”?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 12:13 am
RonF, it’s not my impression that you’re “feminist, pro-feminist, or feminist friendly.” So please, don’t post on this thread. Thank you.
To answer your question, bois is the plural of boi. As used in this thread, I think boi means “a female-born or female-bodied person…sometimes transsexual, transgendered, or intersexed, sometimes not…who generally does not identify wholly or at all as being feminine, female, a girl, or a woman, though some bois identify as one or more of these. Bois almost always identify as lesbians, dykes, or queers; many are also genderqueer or genderfucked. Bois can prefer a range of pronouns, including ‘he,’ ’she,’ or gender-neutral pronouns; it’s usually best to ask to avoid offence.” (Quoted from wikipedia).
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 12:20 am
What is/are “bois”?
lots of definitions here, but the one you want i think is number 2.1
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boi&defid=377470
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 5:02 am
a lot of time on “Alas.” But I wanted to point out this excellent discussion of transwomen and feminism, which took place in Feministe’s comments, mostly between three writers I respect a lot: Piny, Emma of GenderGeek, and Tekanji of Shrub.com. […]Continue reading at Alas, a blog … posted 2:24 am at Alas, a blog
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 10:11 am
>>Those whose primary obsession seems to be BDSM, pornography, strippers, and eschewing gender roles (which, as far as I can tell, essentially means eschewing anything remotely connected to femininity and embracing masculinity).>>
Yeah, I would have to say that doesn’t sound either representative of transpeople as a whole, of the transpeople I’m acquainted with, or of the transpeople on this board. It also sounds as though you’re referring only to ftms and bois here, since you say that the transpeople you know take “eschewing gender roles” to be eschewing femininity. Have I read you wrong?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 1:43 pm
BDSM is the red flag, I think.
I talked about Ariel Levy’s article upthread.
It may in fact be the communities you hang out in. I’ve noticed the same dynamic here, but it’s a very small part of a very big picture. Ftms and bois who aren’t interested in that dynamic go elsewhere and drop off the radar. The ones that fuck men hang out in gay male spaces. The ones that aren’t happy with the way the queer women’s community can sometimes treat “trannybois” (like myself) find other circles to run in. Most of us just transition fully and thereafter live stealth–we date as people who are in one small way different, rather than staying in trans or trans-specific spaces. The latter can be constricting and incestuous, and you tend to run into a lot of really disgusting trannychasers.
Mtfs tend not to hang out in the trans community that bois hang out in because they tend not to be welcome. Around here, trans-friendly means ftm-friendly (and only the ones who still look cute and boyish, generally). Mtfs who date queer women are left hanging. Mtfs face more scrutiny and more shaming. Many of the ftms who stick with the queer women’s/boi’s community are coming from inside; they identified as butches prior to transition.
>>I realize that not every trans will be a part of this community, and that not every trans community is even exactly like this. But that doesn’t change the fact that this sort of thing exists … and seems to be becoming more and more prevalent.>>
Well, transpeople, and ftms in particular, are becoming more prevalent. There are many more of us, now that transition is a realistic option. There are also more of us who are able to live openly as trans and stay in the communities we come from, rather than having to relocate and go underground. I can tell you that there are definitely more of the _other_ kinds of ftms as well. Ten years ago, gay ftms were largely invisible, and ftms who dated other ftms were unheard-of. Now they’re both status quo here.
I think, too, that anyone interested in BDSM will have to run in BDSM circles; it’s a rare proclivity, and it necessitates a lot of networking. Being a queer BDSM-freak in San Francisco is like being a lesbian in Grand Rapids. That may explain the prevalence of BDSM enthusiasts in sexuality-specific communities.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Yup. Mine’s awaiting moderation, too.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 2:31 pm
I’d like to echo what piny said about the disconnect between transsexuals descriptions of transsexual and some feminists hearing of what’s being said.
I think that the disconnect comes from two different perspectives of “the woman question”. To me, transition was about social relations and peer groups, and not at all about my ability to wear dresses. But it’s the “wearing dresses” that seems to be the common perception by certain groups of feminists.
Now, having arrived in this reconstituted body of mine, yes, I do experience oppression in society as a woman. And yes, it does suck. But whether it was going to be better (as one might argue it’s better for f2m types), or worse (as one might argue it’s worse for m2f types) was irrelevant. Whatever the change in social class, I was going to change.
I think that what piny posted
Transsexual: I was miserable for a large portion of my life because I didn’t fit into my gender. I didn’t feel comfortable in my body.
Transphobic Feminist: We understand completely. We’re women. We didn’t feel comfortable in our genders either. We wanted to be boys when we were growing up, and do boy things.
is the root of the problem. Because even if I was allowed to do all sorts of super girly things (which I was, by and large growing up), I still wanted to be a woman. We have to find a way to move past that disconnect or else “transphobic” is going to be the most common modifier in front of “feminist” in situations like this.
This comment was written by furrycatherder.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 5:41 pm
As a feminist my problem with transsexuality is the belief that we are either male or female. I don´t believe that we are born with either female or male brains - apart from the physical differences I think that all our other differences lie in our gendered socialisation.
The very decision to claim one gender as irrevocably ones own goes against my feminist belief. Naturally we cannot escape our deeply ingrained conditioning, but for me being a feminist means constantly trying to become aware of my own gendered behavior. The goal is being human - not male or female.
Trying to change myself and my own perceptions comes first and only secondly comes trying to change society´s perceptions and sexism.
Sorry if I ramble on or seem unclear. I´ve been up a long time celebrating the new year and am still a bit drunk. I´d like to add that none of the above should ever stop us from treating a person as whatever gender they choose - that is simply curtesy.
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 8:14 pm
>>As a feminist my problem with transsexuality is the belief that we are either male or female. I don´t believe that we are born with either female or male brains - apart from the physical differences I think that all our other differences lie in our gendered socialisation.>>
So…how would you explain us?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2005 at 8:18 pm
Because even if I was allowed to do all sorts of super girly things (which I was, by and large growing up), I still wanted to be a woman.>>
I had absolutely no problem doing many girly things–still don’t, really. And I grew up in a family of women who, god love ‘em, never expected me to be anything more or less than I wanted to be. And I had no problem at all passing as female–there seems to be this corollary belief that transsexuals switch to the other gender because they’re terrible at being their birth gender.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 3:39 am
Piny - I don’t understand it. I’ve been thinking about how I would feel if I woke up tomorrow as the opposite sex all other things being equal and, while it might certainly bother me, I don’t think I would ever want to go trough the effort to switch back. But that’s me.
I suppose that in a gendered world, where characteristics and activities belong to certain genders, there will allways be people who feel that the other gender is a better personal choice. This is at the bottom of my feminist belief - I want to get rid of theese gendered stereeotypes and allow us all to be whatever people we want to. For me transexualism is a strange route to go to be oneself, and maybe it depends on to what degree you have internalised the male-female dichotomy but it seems to me as accepting, rather than rejecting, society’s limits on your behaviour and who you are allowed to be.
Sex should be as irrelevant as eye-colour in my feminist utopia. And if it pleases you I’ll gladly throw in that switching between sexes should be as easy as using different colour lenses.
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 6:59 am
>>For me transexualism is a strange route to go to be oneself, and maybe it depends on to what degree you have internalised the male-female dichotomy but it seems to me as accepting, rather than rejecting, society’s limits on your behaviour and who you are allowed to be.>>
Well, but the transpeople on this thread–and most transpeople out there, as well as the therapists who treat us and the theorists who observe us–have rejected this theory that we transition because we’ve internalized sexism because it’s demonstrably false. It doesn’t work to describe us or our lives. It doesn’t match up with how we describe ourselves and our lives.
Transpeople do not feel any more allegiance to gender roles than other people. Transpeople don’t adhere to gender roles in their post-transition gender. Transpeople do not transition so that they can do things they couldn’t do in their pre-transition gender. Transpeople do not “fit” better in terms of traditional gender roles in their post-transition gender than in their pre-transition gender. Some, yes. Enough to make this a working theory, definitely not.
Transition frequently does not make one more normal or more acceptable. It does not guarantee that you will make a passable transman or transwoman; for some people, it means becoming permanently, visibly gender-nonconforming. Furthermore, transpeople do not generally believe that transition will make them more normal or acceptable; quite the contrary, since it’s culturally defined as a kind of suicide. While transsexuality can certainly _fit into_ a binary picture of gender, it flies in the face of the one upon which _this society_ has decided.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 7:34 am
But if you don’t believe in this division into male and female genders why decide that you are one and not the other? Is it all about body-shape?
I still believe that people in general feel it easier to relate to someone saying they are the wrong gender than someone completely disregarding all gender constructions. Still, neither position is anywhere near easy. Am reminded that in Iran sex-changes are seen as completely acceptable but homosexuality can lead to the death-penalty.
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 7:55 am
I have comments for this thread having to do with radical feminism, our view of the transgender/transsexual phenomenon, and the history of the politics between the trans movement and the feminist movement, and I may post them. But before I do, Amp, you designated this thread as being for feminists or pro-feminists only. Furrycatherder is a father’s rights person, a libertarian, a dedicated advocate of “covenant marriage” and a committed anti-feminist who has been trolling feminist venues for a long time now. I think comments from this person ought to be relegated to the threads for MRA’s, fathers’ rights, and anti-feminist people. I won’t post to this thread until the guidelines you’ve established are honored.
Heart
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 8:05 am
Here is an example of Furrycatherder’s views:
FurryCatHerder
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 794
Location & Situation: Herder of Cats
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:55 am Post subject:
——————————————————————————–
Rah, the good news is that more and more states are creating an alternate marriage vehicle known as “Covenant Marriage”. Those marriages have more teeth than the existing “’til I get tired of you do you part.”
I also think that we’ve just got to move beyond the current “best interests of the child” model where a father who worked continually to facilitate having a family is suddenly torn from the children when most of us know that Dad’s become more involved as kids grow older and the initial financial (and physical) burdens of setting up house and bearing children become less of an issue. Going from less than 50/50 to 50/50, and allowing children to have more input in their visitation situation should be more automatic, and less expensive, than it currently is.
_________________
That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
– Frederick Neitzsche (1844-1900).
http://www.dadsdivorce.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13855&highlight=covenant+marriage
The phenomena of someone who identifies as a woman and has transitioned being simultaneously a fathers’ rights person, an anti-feminist and an advocate for covenant marriage may provide some insights into the issues which exist between advocates for transitioning and trans politics in general and feminists.
!
Heart
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 8:28 am
I’m 5′2″ but as a friend once said, “I talk tall” and a 6′5″ guy once told me “I was too intimidating”. These reactions are because, I think, in my mind’s image of myself I am tall and always have been. I’ve checked with my also short sisters and neither of them feel this way.
I have no idea why I feel tall and I doubt very seriously that there is anyone out there who could explain it either. I think that many people believe things to absolutely true about themselves that may appear to be at variance with reality. I don’t see why feeling that your body is the wrong gender type is any different from my sense that I am tall nor can I see why feeling that way has to mean that the person must also believe in gender essentialism.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 8:57 am
i think part of the problem is the mistaken belief that the motivation for going through transition is rooted in some kind of “decision”. i didn’t wake up one day and “decide” i’m a woman, arrange for surgery and hormones, and walk down to the courthouse to change my name.
that’s not to say that at some point, i *did* in fact make the decisions for surgery, hormones, and name changes. but the original premise of those actions was not based on any decision on my part - at least not that i can tell.
and unlike many trans people who seem to be quite sure of their identity, i’m not so invested in making sure everyone knows i’m a woman. i’m not sure myself. what i am sure of is that the quality of my life improved vastly after transition, despite all of the loses i’ve endured.
further, for me, gender is not an “either/or” concept. there are many other “states” besides “male” and “female”. unfortunately, our society only recognizes the two, so for legal purposes, we really must choose one in order to function at some level in day to day life.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 9:23 am
>>But if you don’t believe in this division into male and female genders why decide that you are one and not the other? Is it all about body-shape?>>
Believing in a division into male and female genders, or believing that some people feel comfortable in one rather than the other in a way unrelated to sexism, is not the same as believing in gender roles or adhering to them. Gender is different from gender role; that’s why a transwoman can feel infinitely more comfortable as a butch dyke than as a man.
>>I still believe that people in general feel it easier to relate to someone saying they are the wrong gender than someone completely disregarding all gender constructions. Still, neither position is anywhere near easy. Am reminded that in Iran sex-changes are seen as completely acceptable but homosexuality can lead to the death-penalty.>>
Iran /= here. And transsexuals in Iran /= the officials who mediate transsexuality. And yes, absolutely–that’s true, historically, of the way transsexuals are treated by the medical profession and by society at large. It is not, however, true of transsexuals, many of whom transition _and_ disregard gender constructions.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 9:32 am
The phenomena of someone who identifies as a woman and has transitioned being simultaneously a fathers’ rights person, an anti-feminist and an advocate for covenant marriage may provide some insights into the issues which exist between advocates for transitioning and trans politics in general and feminists.>>
A father’s rights advocate? You mean like Cathy Young? An anti-feminist? You mean like Ann Coulter? The fact that a transwoman, singular, happens to be an MRA, has sweet fuck-all to do with whether transpeople in general are anti-feminist or sexist (they’re not), or whether transition is itself anti-feminist. Your willingness to believe otherwise is your willingness to make bigoted assumptions in order to support your worldview. In this context, that is nothing but an attempt to smear all transpeople as operating from a stance of male privilege.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as “trans politics,” any more than there is one kind of feminism. Your language lumps together Leslie Feinberg, Riki Wilchins, Margaret O’Hartigan, Kate Bornstein, Patrick Califia, Max Valerio, Christine Jorgensen, Sandy Stone, Nick Kiddle, Jay Sennett, and all of the other incredibly different transpeople out there–most of whom, I’m sure, you’ve never bothered to read or investigate. That picture has nothing to do with reality.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 9:50 am
And nothing piny has said there has anything to do with what I’ve posted Just for the record. It isn’t responsive or apropos or relevant to anything I’ve said here.
I will post some thoughts about the politics of transgender/transsexuality, but again, only if Amp’s stated intentions for this thread — that it be for feminists and pro-feminists only — are honored.
Heart
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 10:19 am
i very much hope for the opportunity to read your thoughts, especially since i am transsexual, and consider myself to be very much lacking in knowledge about “the politics of transgender/transsexuality”. to be brutally honest, other than what i’ve read on feminist message boards, i am unaware of any “politics” of “transgender/transsexuality”. perhaps i don’t understand your use of the word “politics”, but the fact that i’m transsexual had absolutely no political context that i can discern.
of course, the little i’ve read on the topic would lead me to believe otherwise, if i were not transsexual.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 11:33 am
A father’s rights advocate? You mean like Cathy Young? An anti-feminist? You mean like Ann Coulter? The fact that a transwoman, singular, happens to be an MRA, has sweet fuck-all to do with whether transpeople in general are anti-feminist or sexist (they’re not), or whether transition is itself anti-feminist.
Cheryl is trying to import a conflict between her and I which originated on the MichFest boards onto this board. The conflict between her and I was specific to that board, so I’m not even going to go there.
Calling me a “Men’s Rights” or “Father’s Rights” activist is simply absurd. I support the civil rights of people. Some happen to be men, some even happen to be fathers. Having this constantly raised by a woman (Cheryl) who was paid to tell women to be submissive to their husbands is just bad Internet drama.
This comment was written by furrycatherder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Am I the only one who has to go to a job today? Okay, probably I am.
And that’s fine. Reading through your posts on the Divorced Dads board, I think that you’re clearly a great deal smarter and more nuanced than a log of people out there supporting the civil rights of men and fathers.
Nonetheless, this thread is for feminists, which is a distinct (although non-contrary) position from supporting the civil rights of people, some of whom happen to be this or that sex. So although you’re welcome to post on “Alas,” until I say otherwise you are not welcome on this thread, or any other thread designated for feminists and pro-feminists. I hope you can see clear to respecting this decision, even if you disagree with it.
1) I am certainly well aware of Heart’s background. But it’s not relevant here. Heart’s dedication to feminism is beyond serious question.
2) I wish you had read the moderation policies more carefully. In particular, this bit: “attack arguments, rather than attacking other posters.” Bringing up Heart’s background in an attempt to discredit her views is a pure ad hom attack, and has greatly reduced the amount of sympathy I’m inclined to give your position.
(Heart, in contrast, brought up your background not to discredit your views, but to ask if you could rightfully post on a “feminist and pro-feminist” thread. Not the same thing.)
SHORT FORM - EVERYONE READ THIS BIT:
1) Furrycatherder is not to post on this or any other thread marked “feminist or pro-feminist” again. Further posts by Furrycatherder on those threads will be deleted by the moderator.
2) Since Furrycatherder cannot post on this thread, I would ask that no one use this thread to criticize Furrycatherder.
2) To avoid diverting this thread further, any further discussion related to the posting rules should be moved to this thread.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 12:04 pm
[Post deleted at author’s request]
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 12:06 pm
We cross-posted. Amp, could you delete my last post?
Thanks.
Heart
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
January 1st, 2006 at 12:11 pm
On ChivalryDec 30 by Lake DesireDec 29 by tekanjiDec 29 by Lake DesireTransphobia to the left of