Responding To The Feminist Anti-Transsexual Arguments
| January 5th, 2007A recent, much-disparaged thread on I Blame The Patriarchy turned into a reprise of feminist arguments over transsexuality. Because the thread is on the long side, it has the benefit of providing several examples of feminist anti-trans arguments, as well as (thankfully) many feminist rebuttals.
I think the anti-trans arguments are wrong in every case. In most cases, I think they’re also bigoted and hateful. Let’s take a tour.
Argument #1: The argument from freeform, irrational hatred of transsexuals.
Luckynkl provided such an exaggerated example of drooling, bile-soaked hate that if I hadn’t known her for years, I would suspect she’s a sock puppet intended to discredit feminism. Here’s a couple of examples, drawn from a dozen or more similar statements:
You want to know how men can hurt women? **chuckle** You’re joking, right? Oh wait. I’m supposed to believe men in drag are women. And if you put on a werewolf mask, will you also expect me to believe you’re a werewolf? [...]
This is about what all this nonsense amounts to. In short, trans are nutjobs. The bathroom is about the last place I want to be alone with a male nutjob. These unfortunate, but seriously disturbed individuals belong on the 5th floor in a straight jacket. Not in a women’s bathroom.
In Lucky’s view, all transsexuals are “male nutjobs,” and they belong in an asylum.1
In this case, the important part of Lucky’s argument isn’t the argument itself (which is based on the nonsensical notion that men — or transwomen — who are apt to break the law by being violent against women in public bathrooms, will be stopped by the sign on the ladies’ room door). Lucky’s real argument here isn’t what she says. It’s her derisive, sneering tone: the point is to let transwomen know that they are “men” (in Lucky’s view, men are evil) and that they are semi-human objects of contempt.
The most reasonable reply to Lucky’s argument is (to quote Brownfemipower): Fuck you. Lucky’s a bigot and an asshole; the difference between Lucky and a Klanswoman is only in which oppressed minority her hate is focused on. (I should note that although Lucky was the most extreme, several feminists joined her in her hate-fest.)
In an excellent post at Desperate Kingdoms, Winter writes:
I did not come to feminism for hatred; I did not come to feminism in order to use my power and privilege as a white, middle-class, cisgendered2 woman to oppress a group of people more oppressed than myself; I did not come to feminism in order to set up new hierarchies or take up the role of oppressor. I came to feminism because I believed, and continue to believe, that as part of anti-oppression activism, feminist theories and philosophies can offer ways of being, thinking and relating which could make life better for all of us, whether we identify as men, women, or something else altogether.
Argument #2: The argument from essentialism.
SaltyC: “Knowing that someone is a woman does not tell me anything about her fate, but it does tell me she knows what I know about what it’s like to bleed.”
Luckynkl: “Sex is static. It cannot be changed. Men cannot be frogs, they cannot be giraffes, they cannot be trees, they cannot be rocks, and they cannot be women. Get over it.”
Maribelle: “Case in point: my friend’s two year old daughter was so cute the other day my ovaries started to throb…. Face it—women are inexplicable. We are born, not made. We are created. We cannot be made by human hands, sculpted from the rib of Adam. We are something else again.”
All of these arguments are based on the idea that there is an essential, universal “womanhood” which “women born women” have access to, but transwomen do not.
This argument assumes that our essence is determined by what’s between our legs at birth. In this view, our abilities and potential is determined not by our individual talents, desires and actions, but by which box the doctor checked off on the form a few minutes after we came screaming into the world (”we are born, not made”). Women are the class that feels longing when faced with a cute two-year-old; men are the class that, I dunno, feels a longing for power tools or something.
Haven’t we heard this before? This is the conservative, anti-feminist vision of gender that feminism has been fighting against for centuries. Feminism was born to fight against this vision; to fight against the harm done to women and men who are shoehorned into these obsolete, confining gender roles; and to fight against the warped culture created when people are taught that gender roles must be respected.
That some feminists are willing to throw core elements of feminism overboard in order to exclude transsexuals speaks volumes.
Note that essentialism isn’t limited to just biological essentialism. There is also “experience essentialism”; in this case, certain experiences are said to define womanhood, always in a post hoc manner designed to exclude some unwanted class of women.
As Brownfemipower points out, making “womanhood” an exclusive space in order to keep out unwanted, marginalized groups is not something new, or something that has been done exclusively to transsexuals. Throughout history, the experiences of relatively empowered women has been positioned as the norm; the experiences of other women is then positioned as non-representative of “womanhood.” This has happened (and is still happening) to women of color, to lesbians3, to Jewish women, and it is currently happening to transwomen.
To my eyes, a lot of the “womanhood is our exclusive domain” arguments strongly resemble anti-same-sex-marriage arguments. “Womanhood,” like “marriage,” is described as if its implications and social meaning has never changed in thousands of years; this false description of unchanging history is then used to argue that all change must therefore be not only bad, but a threat to those who are currently married and/or women. Consider this quote from Magickitty, arguing against accepting transwomen as women:
Why should a newcomer to my knitting group insist that I re-define the meaning of my group? This person has never been to my knitting group before, which I’ve had for thousands of years. This person shares no history with the other members of my group, and yet demands full status in the circle. I am sympathetic; this person had always wanted to knit (since birth, even) but only recently learned, this person is oppressed within their own world because they are a knitter, and this person strongly identifies with my group. But why would this newcomer want to claim equal status when they’ve only been knitting for a short time, and why would they want to insist that knitting includes crochet, when in all the thousands of years of the circle, we’ve only ever knitted?
And to be really crude… the newcomer knits English. My group knits Continental. The finished product may look exactly identical, but… well, you know.
The above quote could be used, without any alteration, to argue against same-sex marriage. It’s the same argument.
Argument #3: The argument that the word “transphobia” is a form of censorship.
Sly Civilian quotes this comment, left by Heart at BFP’s place:
Here, my experience, again, is, if someone offers a differing view of transgender issues than the one you hold, bfp, then that person gets immediately labeled “transphobic.” At that point, the discussion really ends. There’s nothing more to be said.
(By the way, Heart’s description of how BFP acts is unfair; there are myriad examples of BFP disagreeing with people about transgender issues without immediately labeling them transphobic.)
Conservatives frequently use this exact argument to try and put discussions of racism, sexism and homophobia out of bounds.4 The idea is that because these concepts make (some) people in the majority culture so uncomfortable that they hesitate to speak, these concepts should therefore not be included in our discussions.
The emptiness of Heart’s argument is, I think, obvious. Transphobia does not become an illegitimate concept to discuss merely because discussing transphobia makes some cisgendered2 people uncomfortable.5
It’s true, of course, that someone could be accused of being transphobic when they’re not. This is obviously hurtful when it happens, but not nearly as hurtful — or harmful — as refusing to talk about transphobia at all! The need for transsexual and transgendered people to be able to talk about how bigotry harms them outweighs whatever “need” cisgendered people have to not be pushed outside their comfort zone.
Argument #4: Transsexuals are dupes of the medical establishment.
Over at Little Light’s blog, in comments, Ravenmn writes:
One of the more sensible arguments that some radfems make against transgenders is the idea that you are choosing to mutilate and drug your body, therefore are some kind of dupe of the medical establishment.
(Ravenmn wasn’t endorsing that argument, only referencing it.) Nanette responded:
I, of course, am not attempting to answer for anyone who is transgender and has had surgery or anything, but I am not sure I would consider that a sensible argument, unless they are just anti medical or surgical intervention for anything, as a general practice. If not, (or even if so) then someone’s personal medical decisions are none of their business, any more than it’s anyone else’s business if you get your tonsils out, have an abortion (that’s also one of the arguments anti abortion people use), have moles cut off, have cochlear implants (some in the non hearing community oppose that, as well), and so on.
The only way they can make that argument, in my view, is if they feel the same sense of ownership over the bodies of transfolk as the right wingers and others feel they have over women. Funny how sometimes the language, actions and tools of oppression or marginalization take such familiar and similar forms, across beliefs, political views and boundaries.
I agree with Nanette, but I’d add that it’s true, historically, that the medical establishment has used access to medical treatments (like prescription hormones and surgery) as a means of forcing transsexuals to endorse and live by traditional gender roles. As far as I can tell, this has become less true in recent years, to a great extent because many transsexuals have actively resisted the conservative status quo of the old medical establishment.
Finally, it’s worth noting that the “dupes of the medical establishment” analysis ignores the fact that not all transsexuals and transgendered people seek medical help to transition. There are a wide variety of trans narratives: One persistent flaw of the anti-trans critiques is that they frequently are framed as if male-to-female surgical transsexuals who describe themselves as “women trapped in male bodies” are the be-all and end-all of transsexual and transgendered experience.
Which brings us to the next anti-trans argument….
Argument #5: Transsexuality implicitly endorses essentialism and traditional gender roles.
In the I Blame The Patriarchy thread, Edith (of the blog Because Sometimes Feminists Aren’t Nice) wrote:
Radical feminists are also against oppression and against gender roles, but they simply do not see being transgender as a good way to fight gender roles — rather, they see transgender as a way of ENFORCING gender roles. [...]
If gender is inborn, something neurologically wired, then being “born” in the wrong body makes sense. But actually, radfems tend to believe that gender is socialized and therefore, no one is “born” in the wrong body. [...] In this way, I personally think that the more modern, “biological” view of transgender is the more essentialist.
I agree with Edith that the “female brain trapped in a male body” — or the “male brain trapped in a female body” — view of transsexuality is essentialist. But it’s hardly as if “X brain trapped in Y body” narratives are a fair way to describe all of transsexual and transgendered thought! There’s no doubt that some individual transsexuals — like some individual cisgenders — have essentialist views. But to take disagreements with how some transsexuals view gender as a criticism of the entire idea of transsexuality is unwarranted.
In a sense, those transsexuals who move from one sex to the other “entrench the system” of gender as a binary, because they are willing to dress and be identified in society as one gender and not the other. But all of us go along with the gender-binary system in some ways, whether its women who shave their legs or faces, men who avoid wearing dresses and gowns, or any of a thousand ways people adapt to the gendered society we live in.
It’s simply unfair to single out transsexuals for criticism on this score. (I discuss this in more detail in this post). To (once again) quote from Winter’s excellent post:
Moreover, why are transgendered and transsexual women scapegoated and made responsible for upholding gender roles and the patriarchy when every single one of us upholds gender roles every day of our lives? I uphold gender roles every time I call myself a “woman,” every time I answer to my gendered first name, or use my patronymic surname, every time I buy an item of clothing classed as female in a shop for women, every time I use the toilet with that symbol on the door which is supposed to denote womanhood. We are all of us thoroughly gendered under the current conditions. If gender eventually disappears, it will go in its own time; we cannot just get rid of it and we certainly can’t get rid of it by denying other people their rights to their own gendered embodiments.
Further Reading
There have been a lot of excellent responses to the thread at Twisty’s; some are direct rebuttals, others are just thoughts brought to the fore by the current mess. Some of the posts I especially enjoyed: Little Light, the entire discussion at Women of Color Blog, The Silver Oak Leaf, Angry Brown Butch, and Tiny Cat Pants.
- Spotted Elephant has a good post decrying anti-disabled rhetoric used by some folks on both sides of this debate. (back)
- Cisgendered is a term meaning, roughly, “not transsgendered or transsexual.” (back) (back)
- Remember when Betty Friedan argued against “The Lavender Menace”? (back)
- One prominent anti-gay-marriage blog, Family Scholars Blog, in effect banned all discussion of homophobia from its comments. Later on they banned comments altogether, which was probably a mercy for all concerned. (back)
- I think a lot of what I wrote about how white people react when criticized for racism also applies to many cisgendered feminists criticized for transphobia. (back)
January 5th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Thanks for writing this, Amp. While I was taking part in the discussion over at Feministe, I was hoping you were going to address this, and I was a little dissappointed when you didn’t.
I should have kept faith. The post was worth the wait.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 11:43 am
sweet amp. thanks for this.
This comment was written by Bitch | Lab.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 11:56 am
This is about what all this nonsense amounts to. In short, trans are nutjobs. The bathroom is about the last place I want to be alone with a male nutjob. These unfortunate, but seriously disturbed individuals belong on the 5th floor in a straight jacket. Not in a women’s bathroom.
I wholely agree with Amp that this quote is hateful and bigotted against the transgendered. I think it should also be pointed out that it is also hateful and bigotted against people with mental illnesses.
I would expand further on this thought, but to face someone in the 21st century who thinks that all “nutjobs” should be straightjacketed and confined away from everyone else is so wrong on so many levels I do not know where to begin.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
So now it’s cisgendered and transgendered rather than male and female?
Still firmly entrenched in gender no matter how you cut it.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Bodily experiences are of course “essentialistic”. A transman is not going to have the experience of being a newly pubertal boy and having an embarrassing raising of the tent pole in public. A transwoman is not going to have the experience of laboring and birthing. So? I, ciswoman, also will not have the experience of laboring and birthing, being practically on my last oocyte.
I have the feeling that the anti-trans folk haven’t met and talked with transfolk without bringing an agenda to the discussion.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Please, pray elucidate, Q Grrl.
(Thanks for the nod, Amp. I was wondering when you’d weigh in on this.)
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Ditto with the thanks for posting. This was a helpful, thoughtful analysis.
I especially appreciate the pointing out that it’s useless to batter transpeople for “upholding gender roles” when cisgendered people do it all the time, too.
The transsexual person I know most closely does subscribe to the idea of a “female brain” in a “male body.” While the idea does bother me because of the ramifications for essentialism, I am also loathe to dismiss it — I don’t have evidence that it’s wrong, and it seems to describe the experience of my friend, at least.
I feel like the malebody/femalebrain (or femalebody/malebrain) idea can still be reconciled with the idea of socially constructed gender. I feel there are probably some connecting points missing in our understanding of bodies and genders. I know someone, for instance, who has no gender identity, just doesn’t internally identify as male or female and never really has, though sie understands hirself to be female-bodied. That’s outside most theories of gender I’ve seen, or at least my understanding of them.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I once had a class assignment to write on the question “What is a man? What is a woman?” My answer was, quite seriously, “That depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
QGrrl, yes! “Still firmly entrenched in gender no matter how you cut it.” I don’t want to be labeled or known by a “gender” category (whether you have a binary or make up 231 categories). I tell people that I don’t like identifying as a woman because, for the life of me, I cannot figure out what it means to “be a woman.” The closest I can figure out and comfortably use is that it means a person who was labeled so by society in order to be kept subordinate in a patriarchal system that holds (often binary) gender categories to be the primary determinant of one’s lifecourse. With that as my only definition, I really don’t like to identify with a gender apart from when doing so allows me to organize and fight back with others who have received that label and the associated oppression. If “cisgendered” means not “transgendered or transsexual” then what do those words mean? Just what am I not? (I have a hard time with being labeled by what I am NOT instead of what I am.) I’m certainly not comfortable with my gender assignment. I certainly don’t feel I AM a woman at a soul-level. But I’m not comfortable with any gendered system of organizing the world and in my utopia the idea would be laughable.
Amp, you make a great point in saying “It’s simply unfair to single out transsexuals for criticism on this score.” It is something I’ve said several times. We all live in this messed up gendered world and get by as best we can. What too many trans-friendly people seem to assume, however, is that my belief that transsexuality wouldn’t exist in my utopian world where gender didn’t exist is, at its core, transphobic. Funny, because they don’t seem to have nearly as much trouble with me saying that lesbianism and heterosexuality and whatnot wouldn’t exist in that utopia either. (I have just as much hesitation with identifying as lesbian as I do identifying as woman or cisgendered.) I completely agree that, quoting your quoting, “If gender eventually disappears, it will go in its own time; we cannot just get rid of it and we certainly can’t get rid of it by denying other people their rights to their own gendered embodiments.” I also believe, however, that I sometimes need to surround myself with people who have experienced this gender thing in the way I have, as a problematic construct and something to, whenever possible, avoid in our personal lives except for when organizing with others who have also been given an essentialized label of “women” and treated (often oppressed) as such. My thoughts on these matters are always evolving, so I look forward to reading more people’s comments, and I reserve all rights to change some of my thoughts as I do so. :)
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Little light: I was a little hurried. I should have written that cisgendered and transgendered are the 21st century equivalent of man and woman. Neither is relevant until politicized or crunched out into some form of social significance and meaning. Furthermore, “cisgendered”, as used in most discourse regarding transgendered politics, obfuscates the social narrative of gender that is imposed from outside the individual. This use erroneously posits “cisgendered” as a dichotomous pair to transgendered, which assumes transgendered to be, in and of itself, a fully formed identity relevant primarily from the personal outward to the political. As such, the argument of transgendered identity is, and probably always will be, in sharp contrast to radical feminist critiques of gender.
Cisgendered and transgendered, as terms used by a decided politic, are merely the new wine skins of a patriarchal gender hierarchy. Not as identities per se, but as terms of engagement.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Q Grrl -
I have read over comment #9 several times and I have no idea what you are saying. My attempts to understand it remind me of my attempts to read Spanish. I recognise most of the words, and I think I understand many of the phrases, but I do even trust my understanding. It sounds like you are speaking postmodernism. Is it posible to translate your point into social psychology “schemas” or maybe memetics so that those of us who speak analytics can understand it better?
This is not meant sarcastically. You obviously have a well thought out point to make, but I obviously do not have the necessary background to understand it. If translation is not possible and it would take to long to educate me, just let me know and I will leave it alone.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
eh, I knew someone would say that. le sigh
Right now it’s the only way I know how to say it. What I’m getting at is a criticism of pairing types of gender against each other, which is traditionally done with man and women as gender identities and which is slowly encroaching into the *dialogue* of feminism and transgenderism/transsexuality with the *use* of “cisgendered” as a meaninful term. I find it hard to rebut Amp’s criticism because I find the use of “cisgendered” to be highly problematic, but, a) I’m not sure Amp needs criticsm and b) I don’t know if I have the time and vocab necessary to dispute the use of “cisgendered” in this particular narrative.
Basically, it goes something like this: If “cisgendered” does in fact mean *anything*, and more importantly if it’s meaning is derived from it’s non-entity, it’s nothingness if you will, in relation to transgendered, then this points directly to the issues that this, meaning me, radical feminist has with transgendered politics. If all you do is change the names but leave the framework of a dichotomous hierarchy in place, then you are still accepting the *concept* of gender on patriarchal terms.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
[...] Speaking of stigma, Amp, over at Alas, a blog has written a thorough summary of the anti-trans arguments that blew up last week on the feminist blogs. If you somehow missed that mess, perhaps you should be grateful, but you should still check out the post, not just for the linkfarm on the whole debate, but for its systematic, informed assault on each ill-formed ‘argument’ made during the ordeal. [...]
This comment was written by Link-tastic! « Truly Outrageous.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I think I am starting to understand, but I am not quite there. To the extent that you are saying that transgender politics reinforces traditional gender roles, it sounds like you are making the point that Amp addressed as argument #5 without addressing the rebutal that it is unfair to single out trans folk for this criticism. You are adding a further criticism of the use of the term “cisgendered” that I kinda grasp. To say that I am “cisgendered” says nothing about my thinking and behavior in the same way that saying that bacteria reproduce “asexually” says nothing about how they do reproduce.
However, I can also see that you are making a further conection between these two points that I am still missing.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Basically, it goes something like this: If “cisgendered” does in fact mean *anything*, and more importantly if it’s meaning is derived from it’s non-entity, it’s nothingness if you will, in relation to transgendered, then this points directly to the issues that this, meaning me, radical feminist has with transgendered politics. If all you do is change the names but leave the framework of a dichotomous hierarchy in place, then you are still accepting the *concept* of gender on patriarchal terms.
How is it different from describing people as “non-transgendered,” or “not transgendered,” in that case? Do you have a problem with the idea of “transgendered” as a discreet category?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I don’t know if this is what Qgrrl is meaning, but at least for me, creating the boxes of transgendered and cisgendered and saying those who are not transgendered are cisgendered is problematic because neither of those boxes work for me. I do not accept the gender I was assigned at birth. I do not accept some different gender either. I don’t accept the gender construct at all. And the boxes of transgendered and cisgendered simply reinforce the gender construct, something I won’t do with my own identity though I respect the decision of others to do so.
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I do not accept the gender I was assigned at birth. I do not accept some different gender either. I don’t accept the gender construct at all.
But there are people within transgendered who reject both categories as you’ve described them as well as gender altogether; this isn’t exactly how they’re set up.
And how are these two categories different from transgendered as opposed to definitely not transgendered? Cisgendered is only an attempt to keep the rest of the world from describing gender in terms of “trans” and “normal people;” that’s not only a dichotomy but a marked and unmarked category.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Exactly! I just read Sandy Stone’s “The Empire Strikes Back: A Post-transexual Manifesto” which addresses the issue of “being in the wrong body.” She also goes on to ask other transpeople to be more open and out there about their history–that is, to stop passing and to take up the possibilities of literally being *across* the gender spectrum. I agreed with pretty much everything she had to say, but as I read I couldn’t help but think that transpeople were being held to a much higher standard than non-trans feminists. It seemed that the idea was that the usual discourse surrounding trans people (i.e. the wrong body talk) reinforces anti-feminist essentialist views, and hence there is a political imperative for trans people to complicate this discourse by exposing themselves.
In class I looked around the room at 18 women (all non-trans as far as I know) in this graduate level women’s studies course and saw an amazing amount of conformity to traditional gender appearance–long hair, pony tails, long painted nails, skirts, shaved legs, shaved arm pits, lace, v-neck shirts, light makeup, hair clips, etc. I couldn’t help but think, every single one of us is contributing to anti-feminist views about gender essentialism everyday when we come to class with a stereotypically female appearance. And yet, where is the suggestion that non-trans feminists who conform to gender appearance norms should have to justify the choices they make about their appearance?
This comment was written by activistgradgal.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Decnavda: I’m not saying that transgenderism reinforces traditional gender roles, I’m saying the use of the binary between transgenderism and cisgenderism reinforces our traditional concepts of gender as a binary per se. At least this appears to me be be so in the discursive sense.
All of us pretty much reinforce patriarchal gender roles. Those of us who don’t, regardless of identities and orientations, are quickly criminalized or ostracized if we don’t.
Piny: I don’t think you can really say that someone is “non trans-”. Conceptually that is a pretty empty phrase. In order for it to have meaning, you would have to negate the transivity of trans-. Which brings up my problems with transgenderism and it’s situatedness within the current gender binary. In and of itself, I would have to say that transgenderism relies predominantly on the fact that there is a gender binary that theoretically will remain intact infinetly.
I’m not sure how to answer your question about “transgendered” as a discreet category. I think there is a huge difference between the lived experiences of transgendered individuals and the discursive use of “transgendered” when addressing the differences between radical feminism and trans politics.
What I do have a problems with is if “transgendered” is posited as a discreet category within a framework that also posits “cisgendered” as a discreet, and real, category. If cis- is in relation to trans-, then what of the original paradigm of gendered hierarchy, the very real life-changing and life-challenging implications of being born male, female, or intersex is a patriarchal gendered hierarchy? “Cisgendered”, especially as defined by Amp above, is meaningless outside the discourse of “transgendered”. I have to wonder at its efficacy to describe any real political/social entity.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I, too, weighed in on this early in the discussion very briefly. I kept popping over here to see when you would share your thoughts on the matter. Glad to see you finally have. An excellent post indeed.
This comment was written by Dylan.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Piny: I don’t think you can really say that someone is “non trans-”. Conceptually that is a pretty empty phrase. In order for it to have meaning, you would have to negate the transivity of trans-. Which brings up my problems with transgenderism and it’s situatedness within the current gender binary. In and of itself, I would have to say that transgenderism relies predominantly on the fact that there is a gender binary that theoretically will remain intact infinetly.
I need to know what you mean by “transgenderism.”
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I’m not sure how to answer your question about “transgendered” as a discreet category. I think there is a huge difference between the lived experiences of transgendered individuals and the discursive use of “transgendered” when addressing the differences between radical feminism and trans politics.
What is that difference? And if there is a collection of transgendered individuals, then why is there not a category?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
piny-
Although I am firmly on the pro-trans side here, I do see the problem with “transgendered” as a discrete category, at least in theory. “Trans” as a category assumes the existence of other discrete categoies to move from and to. Thus, “transgendered” as a discrete categoy accepts the existence of male and female genders as discrete categories. In a nongendered society, there could be no transgendered people.
Where I disagree with the feminist critics of transgendered politics is in two places. First, even if a transgendered woman is reinforcing the construct (or schema, or meme) of womanhood by claiming to be one, I do not see how it deconstructs womanhood to respond by saying, “No, you are not.”
Second, I think that if society accepts “transgendered” as a discrete category, it will help to breakdown the discreteness of male and female, so that the acceptance of transgendered people puts us on the road toward a nongendered society.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Actually, Activistgradgal, I see a lot of suggestion that feminists who do not identify as trans who conform to gender appearance norms should have to justify the choices they make about their appearance. And I don’t think it is a bad thing. To trouble a decision to shave one’s legs, pierce one’s ears, wear makeup, wear one’s hair long, etc and force those to be intentionally thought-through decisions is important. But we also have to recognize that being a “nonconformist” in appearance is also often viewed through gendered eyes. I hear my dyke friends say things like “Well, I don’t wear my hair long because I’m not into all that girly stuff” or “I’m too butch to wear a dress.” As best I can tell, regardless of what I do, it will be gendered by those who view me. If I shave my legs, the behavior will be gendered as female/feminine. If I don’t, it will be gendered as male/masculine. I simply cannot shop for clothes without “doing gender.” Therefore, I don’t believe physical appearance is the best place to be troubling the gender construct at this point. It may serve to break associations between one’s biological state at birth and one’s appearance, but it doesn’t radically change people’s thoughts about gender categorization on the whole. In terms of appearance, I think we have to do what makes us comfortable, humbly recognizing that it is influenced by our personal aesthetics, our body types, and social norms. In the end, I agree with you… the “stop passing” imperative is problematic. But gendered appearance norms should be open to discussion and critique for all people.
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I think that’s an idea worth some thought, Virginia, and discrete labels do tend to destroy shades of meaning in some non-useful ways . . . but it ends up feeling to me a bit like responding to racial discrimination with “race is an illusion, so what are you complaining about?”
I mean, there are different levels of fighting the system, and they’re all useful . . . challenging the current concrete manifestations of prejudice and challenging the overarching systems that lie behind the prejudice both have their place, but if you’re using the “challenging the overarching systems” part to fight the “challenging the current concrete manifestations of prejudice” part, I’ve got a problem with that.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Piny,
A couple things. First, could you clarify “this isn’t exactly how they’re set up.” I’m not sure what you mean. Second, I understand and agree on the “normal and not” reason for having the word “cisgendered.” I’m all up on the history of labeling “otherness.” :) I just don’t accept that label for myself, and I’m not sure that the whole system of labels - transgendered, cisgendered - does much good for my ultimate dream of ridding the world of gender.
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
But transgendered isn’t “normal”. Why else the use of trans-?
I would certainly hope that we can move beyond the need to be seen as “normal” within the patriarchy. But I do see how this argument (between radical feminism and trans politics) often gets bogged down in some folks not wanting to be seen as freaks, as abnormal, deficient, etc. etc. Which is a most worthy thing to work for politically and socially.
My standpoint is that there are a vast quantity of people who* are* “normal” and who invest gobs of energy, thought, politics, and religion into upholding that normalicy (think SSM for starters - either side of the coin). I don’t, however, think that my feminist politics are part and parcel of that framework.
So, I guess my problems is with the development of somewhat meaningless terms cropping up because of a larger misreading/misunderstanding between radical feminists and proponents of trans politics. I do think of transgendersim as abnormal. Thank god. Normal gender practices tend to fuck me over on a very personal level. I don’t support Luckynkls descent into hatefullness; but I also don’t support the use or propping up of terms that seem to only address that type of bigotry and not a larger framework of envisioning gender.
Shit, I’m not even sure that makes sense.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Decnavda: I’m not saying that transgenderism reinforces traditional gender roles, I’m saying the use of the binary between transgenderism and cisgenderism reinforces our traditional concepts of gender as a binary per se. At least this appears to me be be so in the discursive sense.
I do not see how. “Transgendered” implies (at least) two other genders to move from and to. To accept trans and cis, you imply male and female, so now instead of binary genders, we now have four. This is an example of why I think trans acceptance moves us down the road to a nongendered society. The more there are, the closer they get to just being the individual, and the meaning of gender then disappears.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Myca,
Completely with you. :) I’m speaking of the former and not the latter. As for the latter, I’m active in fighting discrimination on all fronts, including that faced by those who identify as transgendered. I do my best to operate on the two levels of “how the world is/what we have to work with” and “how the world should be/what we should have to work with” simultaneously. I find it difficult, sometimes, to reconcile activism on the two levels, and I suspect I’m not alone there. For instance, I want to see less discrimination against lesbians, but then I’d also like to see the entire construct of sexual orientation destroyed. So do I make a speech on the importance of non-discrimination laws that will protect people of different sexual orientations? After all, that codifies a view of sexuality and gender that I don’t ultimately support! :) And as you point out, recognizing that race is an illusion doesn’t cancel out its very real effects on the world and the need for work to end racism. Can we work to end racism without essentializing race? I don’t know. I fully expect to learn more about the possibilities as I grow.
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Roughly: those individuals who are uncomfortable with the socially imposed gender they were assigned who believe that they have the personal, social, and political ability to represent an alternative gender identity.
I would say that a collection of transgendered individuals would be a discreet social entity. No problems with that. It’s the *discursive* use of “transgenderd”, as seen in these types of threads that I have a problem with. Especially if “transgendered” is paired with “cisgendered”. For the reasons I tried to outline above.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
A couple things. First, could you clarify “this isn’t exactly how they’re set up.” I’m not sure what you mean.
It’s just that “I don’t identify with my assigned gender” and “I don’t identify with some other gender, either” and “I don’t accept the gender construct” are all statements that can coexist with “I am transgender.” I’m not saying you are; I’m just saying that the two options you’ve rejected don’t match the categories you’re rejecting.
But transgendered isn’t “normal”. Why else the use of trans-?
It’s not not-normal, either.
I would certainly hope that we can move beyond the need to be seen as “normal” within the patriarchy. But I do see how this argument (between radical feminism and trans politics) often gets bogged down in some folks not wanting to be seen as freaks, as abnormal, deficient, etc. etc. Which is a most worthy thing to work for politically and socially.
This is not what I’m saying. It’s not about being freakish as in different or uncommon, but about being freakish as in the site of society’s anxiety about something. Normal people and the trans implicitly makes gender our problem, not theirs. The same thing you’re complaining about, but from a different angle. It’s like having “inverts” vs. “healthy sexual people.” This is an attempt to keep anyone from claiming themselves as normal and treating other people as abnormal: a refusal to accept the idea as legitimate, not an insistence that we’re normal, too.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Decnavda,
“The more there are, the closer they get to just being the individual, and the meaning of gender then disappears.” Thanks for this view. I’m not entirely sure I agree (I’ve long said I don’t want more genders, I want no gender classification at all), but it’s nice to see how it could work spelled out. Until now, people have always just said “no, this isn’t about a binary, it’s about a continuum” or “I agree we need more than 2 genders,” and neither of those responses have made any sense to me at all, as they ultimately did not challenge gender itself. It is refreshing to see somebody thinking about how increasing the categories might do away with them eventually. Can you think of other places that this has happened?
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Roughly: those individuals who are uncomfortable with the socially imposed gender they were assigned who believe that they have the personal, social, and political ability to represent an alternative gender identity.
I don’t know if I can accept that definition; why would they need to have those resources at their disposal to be trans? And yet there are no people who are definitively not trans?
It’s the *discursive* use of “transgenderd”, as seen in these types of threads that I have a problem with. Especially if “transgendered” is paired with “cisgendered”. For the reasons I tried to outline above.
I’m not sure I see the discursive shortfall.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I know. I think it’s how I’m trying to describe it that is failing. Although I also think you might not agree with me. Although, again, I see it as a problem on both sides of the issue.
FTR, I don’t really understand your first paragraph in post #32.
And I have to run. My bus to weekend reprieve is coming soon.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Decnavda & Myca (and anyone else, I guess),
Another question for you. How does all this play out alongside a need to recognize that, for the vast majority of female-bodies persons, a female gender has been forced upon them and used to oppress them?
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
[Comment deleted by Amp.]
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
So do I make a speech on the importance of non-discrimination laws that will protect people of different sexual orientations? After all, that codifies a view of sexuality and gender that I don’t ultimately support!
While such a speech and other politicalrhetoric around anti-discrimination laws (by both sides) may reinforce the categories being protected, the laws themselves do not. If you are fired because the boss thinks you are black, or gay, or schizophrenic, that is illegal whether or not you actually are black or gay or schizophrenic. Far from enshrining the existence of such classes in code, these laws prevent the use of the social constructs in certain defined situations.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Piny,
Ahh, now I see what you are saying. The reason my statements (or what I intended to say) can’t coexist with “I am transgender” is the word “am.” I don’t want any part of my essential identity, at what I would call a soul-level, associated with gender. I’m still working out how to live that. Sometimes I make it a point to say “I identify as ____” instead of “I am ____.” But really, I just don’t know what to do with it. I have no problem saying “I am a student,” but I think that is because my listener is unlikely to essentialize “student” like we do gender. For me, to say “I am transgender” is about as problematic as saying “I am a woman” because both of those are (potentially essentialist) categories that society has created for me, not categories I believe I would have created for myself in some utopian world where free will actually existed. I should really probably study some more philosophy when thinking about these things. My background in social psychology and women’s studies has not prepared me with the vocabulary needed to make this clear, but I hope you have some sense of what I’m getting at.
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
And I have to run. My bus to weekend reprieve is coming soon.
Heh. Have fun. I’ll try to clarify a bit, too. And as always, I appreciate this discussion.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Ampersand,
My quote was only about bleeding and feeling kinship with others who have bled, and anyway I have abandoned trying to define women outside of truly and sincerely believing you’re a woman.
But I was swayed by arguments by sincere activists such as brownfemipower and Y carrington as well as NexyJo and Little Light.
I would NEVER have been swayed by your liberal quoting out of context, lumping radicals with people who are out to kill them, and your history of attempts to drive a wedge between feminists and your attacks on the credibility and relevance of Andrea Dworkin.
I don’t believe your motives are clean, and your methods certainly are not.
I have changed my mind, I now accept transwomen as women, but I still despise you and your style.
I especially despise your charactarization of my former stance, which was never this:
“This argument assumes that our essence is determined by what’s between our legs at birth. In this view, our abilities and potential is determined not by our individual talents, desires and actions, but by which box the doctor checked off on the form a few minutes after we came screaming into the world (”we are born, not made”). Women are the class that feels longing when faced with a cute two-year-old; men are the class that, I dunno, feels a longing for power tools or something.”
Bullshit, I never ever believed that.
I said I would never post here and I never will again.
This comment was written by saltyC.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
How about “I have a vagina. If that’s important to you to know, do with the information what you will.”
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Decnavda,
Agreed on the law issue itself. That is why I continue to fight for legal changes. But the law does not sit pretty and do nothing to our understanding of reality. If I (or, heaven forbid, a news program) teach a child about an anti-discrimination law and what it says, the child is likely to pick up on some understanding of the importance and general acceptance of the categories being used in it. Ultimately, yes, the laws are a plus, and they protect based on perception, not an “real” (whatever that means) membership in a group. But as a side effect they can also serve to highlight what group memberships we consider important and even essentialize.
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
This is a very interesting conversation that’s sprung out of a very good post by Amp. I especially enjoyed parts #4 and #5 and how many more people are getting the “why is it fair to single trans people out for criticism on these grounds when we don’t even think about everyone else doing the same things.” It might also be good to ask why this does happen; maybe the answer is because trans people’s existence brings the subject up when otherwise it would remain relatively invisible. If that is not an important step in challenging gendered expectations, I would be surprised. All the more shame that trans people get punished for causing the problem with gendered behavior to be noticed in the first place, whether or not they are committed to playing a gendered role — which of course not all trans people are. Now we have to take the next step and not just question trans people’s choices about gender expression, but everyone’s, and also recognize how much each of us has to do, all the time, often without really thinking about it, to keep from being brutalized by gender-enforcing systems of oppression.
I totally agree that “cisgendered” is a backwards-formulation. Kind of like heterosexuality, right? Which did not exist before homosexuality became a concrete idea. (Insert Foucault reference here.) I don’t see how that makes it entirely empty of meaning. Most people understand what heterosexual means. A lot of people have at least a crude understanding that it’s possible to be “between” these two boxes, even though they are quite artificial boxes. People who have thought about it even more might realize that “betweenness” doesn’t just involve a third box or necessarily even a “spectrum between poles.” But the reality is that the social world we have to move through (to say nothing about tendencies of human psychology) is a categorical one and we all negotiate tons of categories.
Of course the conceptual existence of “transgenderism” relies, in the very etymology, on the existence of a gender binary. If there were no binary or no gender, then there would be no concept such as transgender. I don’t get either what the problem is with accepting this OR what it means to point this out. “Transgender” is not something that has been “designed” as a solution to gender, and at least originally not something that is designed at all: it’s something that happens to people who are in a binary gender system. I understand my being trans as a reaction to binary gender, how I was forcibly placed in it, and as a method of survival and negotiation with gender so that I would not get crushed by gender. This position doesn’t exactly endear me to gender as a system. And there’s a reason you hardly see any trans people encouraging others to be trans too — it’s not a “positive strategy for revolution.” It’s something that happens both to and by you, I think. But yeah, I don’t think it’s uncommon for trans people to be pissed off by gender binaries — all the claims back and forth about how trans people are supporting the binary or are the best hope for destroying the binary usually come from outside, objectifying viewpoints. For a lot of trans people, “transgender” is about surviving the goddamn binary. Which is something a whole lot of gender-disenfranchised people (including all women) have to strategize and work and position themselves and run and hide and rebuild and remake themselves in order to do.
I do agree that now, after the fact of trans people’s lives, “transgender” is being turned into an academic concept that may be totally different than trans people’s lives. But I would be hard pressed to say how, because the “trans politics” and “trans ideology” that has been targeted by a lot of self-identified radical feminist opponents of something vaguely “trans” is highly abstract. Is it particular works we’re talking about? Particular authors? Particular trends? Heck, there are a lot of authors, works, and trends around “trans” that many trans people would be the FIRST in line to condemn, because messed-up stuff about “transgender” affects us quite immediately, don’t you think? But there have been very little specifics in a lot of the blog arguments lately. Instead “trans politics” seems to be standing in for all trans people and ideas related to “transgender” — and so trans people’s lives are getting mischaracterized, misunderstood, and slammed hard.
I am a trans woman and I also say things very much like what Virginia said:
And I’m far from the only one — ask nexy jo, she was probably the first trans woman I ever saw write something like this, and it set off a chord in me. If that confuses the bejeezus out of you, then there is something insufficient in your theory of trans — whether or not you’re a trans person yourself. At this point some readers are probably saying “if you don’t identify as a woman then what makes you a trans woman?” My experiences, for one thing, which is why when I have the luxury I “identify” as someone of trans experience, and the ways my experience have influenced my perspective of the world.
And that makes a whole lot of sense to me too. To paraphrase Riki Wilchins, “I don’t know why they say I transgress gender when from my point of view, it’s gender that’s transgressing all over me.”
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
The reason my statements (or what I intended to say) can’t coexist with “I am transgender” is the word “am.” I don’t want any part of my essential identity, at what I would call a soul-level, associated with gender. I’m still working out how to live that. Sometimes I make it a point to say “I identify as ____” instead of “I am ____.” But really, I just don’t know what to do with it. I have no problem saying “I am a student,” but I think that is because my listener is unlikely to essentialize “student” like we do gender.
I see the distinction; again, I didn’t mean to imply that, duh, obviously trans. So I dunno. I’ve seen trans used as anti-essentializing language, as a category that transgresses categories, but I’ve also encountered people who reject those categories as essentializing either in practice or theory. I’m not really sure how to resolve the tendency towards essentializing–which, you’re absolutely right, exists with gender as it doesn’t with so many other things–with language in general.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Oops, back at #37, I meant to say “I am identified as/considered ____” not “I identify as.”
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Oops, back at #37, I meant to say “I am identified as/considered ____” not “I identify as.”
Oh. I assumed that you were talking about affinity that likely had something to do with reception anyway, so.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Works the same either way. Fairly new in my thinking on all this, so word choices are still shifting every day.
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Re: people who have unusual approaches to gender identity. Is it hugely unusual to feel one has a non-gendered soul/ essence? I feel that way, but I am in a female body, and the world sees me as female, so I identify in part as “socially female, just not the usual variety”, and see it as expedient to expand the traditional definition of “woman” to include non-traditional women of all sorts, including the ones who have or have had penises.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I don’t think it’s hugely unusual, but I don’t know if anyone’s ever done a survey. For what it’s worth, I’ve always felt that my “self” isn’t especially male or female. And “socially male, just not the usual variety” seems (to me) like an accurate description; and I agree with you about expanding the definition of “women” and also the definition of “men.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
It is refreshing to see somebody thinking about how increasing the categories might do away with them eventually. Can you think of other places that this has happened?
I cannot think of perfect examples, but I can think of some that are close.
One is class. While there were many levels of nobility in the past, there was a pretty strong distiction between nobles and peasants. After the industrial revolution, the “middle-class” became a fairly distinct entity for a while, but it had to break up into factory-owners vs. managers vs. professionals, etc. Nowdays, there is strong ecconomic oppression of the poor, and social mobility is not as great as some beleive, but we do live in an essentially classless society. what matters is the exact amount of money you personally have, and while it is likely to be a realtively similar amount to what your great grandfather had, whether it is or not does not actually matter all that much.
Another is ethnicity, particularly among white people. At some points in Ameican history, there were far fewer white ethnicities, and some groups such as the Irish or the Italians were discriminated against in manners similar to blacks and Latinos today. The more different white ethnicities moved here, the more ethnicity became something of a quirk among “white” people.
I can see it also in religion in America. We broke away from a country with a specific sect as a state religion, but there were so many Protestant sect in the U.S. that we agreed to be just a Prostestant nation. Eventually enough Catholics showed up that we became a Christian nation. As Jews gained prominance, we became a “Judeo-Christian” nation. Now, most of our leaders say that we are a nation of people of faith. So I personally am still an Other, but at least the acceptance of all faiths is strong enough that the conservatives who criticised Representative Ellison for swearing on the Koran were shouted down by other conservatives.
And I HOPE the same is happening with race in America. The white/black binary has made eliminating the concept of race extremely difficult. Even when it is legal for blacks to marry white, socially it is still considered a “mixed marriage”. The recent explosion of the Latino population might make it easier. Now instead of two races, we have three, and here in California, four. And for some reason, Latinos can marry anyone without it being treated as a “mixed marriage”. So I now have Asian and black relatives without any of treated like we are in a mixed marriage. The moer races there are, the less it seems to matter. (Please note that this use of race to support my point is the weakest of my examples, as at this point it is still just a hope.)
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“Normal”. I find it a vague term, most often unhelpful. I define “normal” as compatible with adequate function. Of course, you then have to define the function, and what “adequate” means. Under this definition, rare variants can be normal as long as they are functional.
Others take the statistical approach and define “normal” as what 95% of the functional population looks like. By this definition, exclusive homosexuality and early assumption of transgendered identity are both “not normal”, if the population sampled is “all humans”. I can’t be all that concerned about mere rarity, however. Redheads over 6′8″ are also rare, but noone is calling them abnormal (unless they are victims of overactive pituitary glands, in which case they have some associated health issues like diabetes).
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I dunno…I still don’t want a male, transgendered or not, who still has his/her male genitalia intact in the ladies’ room with me. Not as long as there are only flimsy partitions with broken locks and openings separating me from the rest of the room.
This comment was written by novathecat.I could live with it if the stalls have floor to ceiling doors with good locks, but that isn’t so in most buildings.
When I was in high school bullies used to kick down the stall doors in the girls’ room, and I still have nightmares about boys in the restrooms.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
SaltyC: I’m very glad you’ve changed your mind. That’s wonderful. And it’s a tribute to both your own open-mindedness, and to the great writing of the folks who convinced you to change your view.
I do agree that the bit you quoted didn’t apply to your “bleed” comment. This quote from the same section of my post was intended by me to be more responsive to your argument: “Note that essentialism isn’t limited to just biological essentialism. There is also ‘experience essentialism’; in this case, certain experiences are said to define womanhood, always in a post hoc manner designed to exclude some unwanted class of women.”
Whether or not you believed that, I think it was a fair interpretation of the arguments you put forward at that time.
I didn’t talk at all about “radicals” in my post; although obviously many of the folks I criticize self-identify as radfems, I don’t know if all of them do or not. I lumped them all together as feminists because I believe they all self-identify as feminists. I’m not aware of anyone I quoted who is literally out to kill radical feminists, but if that’s true, it would certainly make everything that person says non-credible.
I don’t try to drive wedges between feminists. Frankly, I think I usually bend over backward to avoid conflict, and to avoid criticizing other feminists; this post is a major exception to my general practice.
Finally, “Alas” readers can read this post, which is the most sustained post I’ve ever written about Dworkin (that I recall), and judge for themselves if I’ve attempted to undermine her credibility or relevance. (It’s certainly true that I don’t agree with much of what Dworkin wrote.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
If you don’t want a male in your restroom, I guarantee you that the men don’t want women walking in their restroom. (squk)(sound of male urinary sphincters slamming shut at the speed of light). And I bet a transwoman wouldn’t be too keen on having you do an “equipment inspection”.
Me - I don’t much care. People are either scary or not, and frankly I’d be more worried about a girl gangsta than the average transwoman orthe cisguy that strolled into the women’s bath room by accident.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Barry just posted a nice round up and rebuttal to various arguments in the Transgender War. It’s another one of his great posts where you can get a decent overview of what the issues were all in one place. This is the kind of stuff I had in mind for the lefty/feminist/radical/whatever print publication I think we need to start. Ahhhhh, to
This comment was written by Queer Dewd Formerly Known As ( ).Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
(I lurk and lurk and lurk and never post…but I sometimes post over at BFP’s)
It’s so interesting to me the way “transgender” turns into a debate about language and its purposes. I wish I could say something really clever and theory-ish about that, but I can’t think of anything right now.
Q Grrl: I feel like the language we use for politics is always inadequate, and there’s always a tension between political/”mobilizing” language and introspective/theoretical language. To me, that’s productive. When people use language toward a political end, it gets ossified and usually problematic–but it can also gain rhetorical force because it’s ossified/reified. That used to scare me a lot, because I felt like it was impossible to make a st atement about any kind of political action that didn’t rely on bad categories, and yet I also felt that political action needed to be taken. (As you can tell, this is a version of “reform versus revolution” anxiety) But I feel like the [dialectical?] tension between mobilization and introspection can kind of take care of this problem, as long as we let it. That is, it’s important not to be too attached to any one term or way of describing a problem….the part of the left I’m in (and me too, as a person) gets sidetracked a lot by looking for permanent solutions: the permanently correct analysis of capitalism, language to use about race, position on food production, theory of gender, as if we could get all our thinking done in one feel swoop and then never have to think again.
(Of course, this rests on the idea that we do have some permanent values, so that’s a bit inconsistent right there…)
So what I’m saying is this: I think that “cisgender” is a mobilizing term. It’s intended to shock people-who-think-of-their-gender-as-natural by naming what they have, what has hitherto gone nameless. In this sense, yes, it’s supposed to be paired with “trans”–it’s paired with trans for the same kind of political purpose as pairing “white”, another bad, amorphous term, with “person of color”. (Which is not to say that trans issues are somehow identical with racial issues).
Gender categories, as people here have pointed out, come apart when you press them. They’re like fog or a handful of mud–you try to grapple with them, but there’s nothing there. At the same time (to continue the metaphor) it’s not enough to say “well, fog really doesn’t exist”…in a way that’s hard to define neatly, fog exists. It’s not (as far as I can tell) an effective political strategy merely to tell people-who-don’t-think-of-themselves-as-transgendered that there really is no such thing as gender. I feel like that’s where the more introspective parts of the left (especially those of us, like me, who have various types of race and class priviledge) tend to hit the wall–I can think myself to a point where I don’t believe in gender and I don’t believe in race, but then I feel that my responses to the situations I see around me every day are woefully inadequate because I don’t allow myself to use the linguistic register that these things occur in.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are different political registers, and I’m not worried when they provide correctives for each other. It would worry me if someone said “cisgender is a perfect term for reasons x, y and z and when you say it is problematic you threaten the revolution” but it doesn’t worry me when people use the term “cisgender” in specific political contexts.
As far as all this nonsense about “Oooh, the MTFs are coming! Lock up your bathrooms!” goes, well, I have never yet encountered someone who could say “I had this specific bad experience with a transgendered person and that’s why I am afraid of them.” I’ve never even encountered anyone who can say, “I was in this discussion group and this transgendered person behaved in this specific manner which was disruptive.” It’s all theoretical, like “Well, I think they’re men, and I think men would do X if they were in our group.” Of course, isolated bad behavior wouldn’t justify blanket condemnation anyway, but I’d take the argument a little more seriously if there were actual examples given. (I’ve no doubt that, the world being wide, there are a couple of examples floating around out there–people behave badly from time to time anywhere you go–but I sure do find it interesting that this whole argument is never based in examples but only abstractions.)
This comment was written by Frowner.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
This is only tangentially related to the discussion, so I apologize in advance, feel free to ignore this more concrete question.
Why is it so important to have segregated bathrooms? I went to France recently and all the bathrooms at the rest stop highways were unisex. In the Netherlands a lot of public restrooms were unisex as well. At first it really disturbed me to walk past a row of urinating men to get the stalls. Then I realized the men were being very polite and hunching over a bit so the women didn’t have to see it. As long as the bathrooms are well-trafficked I don’t see any danger. Now I have hope for a future where everyone will pee together and no one will care.
This comment was written by atlasien.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Frowner said:
I agree completely, and I think that that’s the hidden agenda once you get behind most of the ‘women born women’ rhetoric: a blatantly transphobic, “well, they may say they’re women, but you know that really . . .”
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
while i understand why people say this, and especially in the context of a binary gendered system it makes perfect sense, i can’t buy into it. and i believe i don’t buy into it in part because of the way we use the two terms “sex” and “gender”. even if we achieve our goal and eliminate gender, i believe there would still be people who would want to change their bodies from stereotypical “male” configurations to stereotypical “female” configurations, and visa versa. and because transsexuals are part of the umbrella concept of transgender, transgender as a concept would still be around.
i might be convinced that there would be fewer people who would want to change sex (or trans sex, as the case may be), if an end to gender was achieved, but i don’t believe *no one* would want to “change sex”.
we humans have always seemed to prefer dividing our world into two categories. perhaps we do that because it’s easier to navagate through our mental constructs of the world in which we live, or because of the language we’ve developed, or some reason i haven’t thought of. but there’s no doubt we humans like binary categories, and we like those categories to be opposite one another. in a world such as ours that is all gray, we still insist on forcing its elements into black or white. but to me, there’s also no doubt that a few of us like to rebel against binaries and opposites.
i believe that as long as there is more than one sex, there will be transsexuals. and as long as there is more than one gender, even if we have 100, there will be transgender people. and frankly, i also believe that as long as there is more than one sex, gender will exist. though i can hope that we can minimize the effect that gender imposes on us.
as holly points out, i don’t “identify” as a woman or a man, at least as gendered beings, because i don’t know what those terms really mean. i claim no “gender identity” because i never “felt” like either gender. certainly, part of the motivation for my transition was a response to our society, and the gendered role i was expected to follow. on the other hand, changing my body, specifically bottom surgery, was motivated, in large part, by the way i prefer my intimate encounters to be. i’ll admit though, that my preferences may very well be constructed by the binary gendered society in which we live. i suppose i’ll never know for sure - no one can know for sure unless and until gender is eliminated.
still, i’m not so comfortable with the female gender role i’m supposed to follow now either. originally, i just wanted to transition from a man to, well, nothing. but you know, we need a letter to put on our legal documents. and “f” works better than “m” for me.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 1:43 am
we humans have always seemed to prefer dividing our world into two categories. perhaps we do that because it’s easier to navagate through our mental constructs of the world in which we live, or because of the language we’ve developed, or some reason i haven’t thought of.
Well, we have two brains, kind of. And each half does think about things differently. Maybe splitting things in two to think about them worked well for our ancestors and so we got really good at it.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Oh I see now,
porn is to fashion magazines
as
violence against women is to violence against men
as
trans people conforming to gender is to anyone else conforming to gender
Is it just that trans people are much worse and more harmful than everyone else? Or that trans people are the real problem that needs to be discussed, and bringing up the latter subjects is a distraction?
For the record, I’ve never heard nor read a trans person claim that all trans people inherently upend gender more than non-trans people. That kind of claim, when it does show up, usually comes from someone else, and often in response to some sort of stereotype about all trans people being conformists who support gender roles and structures.
But hey, maybe we’re all close to agreeing that trans people are just as liable to conform to gender as everyone else. Which is to say, most people do and some people don’t and some people actively resist. Then we could stop talking about trans people as somehow notably different or remarkable in this regard, right? We could just talk about gender conformity and reinforcement of gendered structures in general, and go back to arguing over how much wearing lipstick discredits you as a feminist.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Holly wrote:
Holly, you’re assuming that porn/violence against women are “worse and more harmful” than women’s mags/violence against men. I don’t think they are worse and more harmful, and it’s not clear that Bean intended her comparison that way.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 7:58 am
You know, the longer I live, the more I embrace the notion that generalizations deeply limit people’s lives. The binary system of gender that feminism seeks to unravel encapsulates immense generalizations regarding human behavior. The notions of male and female certainly do a rotten job of describing human beings.
Ironically, even feminist theory or queer theory or gender theory—in spite of their usefulness—are all generalizations and rough approximations. No theoretical model truly describes the real-life system it is based upon. The point at which we move beyond seeing these concepts as a set of useful tools and cease to distinguish them from the real systems (and actual human beings) that they approximate is the moment in which dogma is born. It is also the moment in which theory moves away from a tool of understanding toward a basis for prejudice.
As nexyjo implies, we human beings have difficulty processing information without breaking data into convenient, distinguishable chunks. This tendency shares some of the responsibility for the tenacity of gender stereotypes, racial stereotypes and many other detrimental systems of perception in the world. A desire to maintain privilege and control over others also shares responsibility. This tendency also lies at the heart of creating various theories to help us understand and possibly manipulate the world that we live in. None of us has the ability to perceive and understand societies or physical systems in their entirety. In place of omniscience, we have theoretical models.
So, we use theoretical models to understand and change systems of oppression that force people into generalized categories (social castes) as a means of control. That is, we are using generalizations to understand and control a form of social organization that controls people via generalizations. The tools that we use to challenge the system share many flaws in common with the system we are challenging.
I’m not sure what alternatives we have to this whole process. Nevertheless, if we aren’t careful, we could easily replace one horrid social system with another.
The snake swallows its tail…
This comment was written by StacyM.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Bean wrote:
Point well taken, regarding feminist criticism of women wearing lipstick, skirts, boob jobs, etc.. - I can think of lots of examples of this (and even some flamewars over this). (Contrary to your assertion here, I can’t recall even one case of feminists criticizing men for not wearing skirts or makeup. Maybe you’ve seen it, but I haven’t, and ime it’s not commonplace.)
But I’m not sure the parallel can be taken very far (which is a bit cheesy of me to say, since I’m the one who brought the parallel up in the first place). Criticizing someone for wearing makeup is one thing; criticizing someone for being trans seems like a more crucial attack on their core identity. It’s the equivalent of criticizing a woman for maintaining the gender binary because she’s heterosexual (which I realize some feminists have done, but it’s rarer, and imo unreasonable), or because she identifies as female rather than refusing to accept any gender identity.
In instances in which the “being trans supports the gender binary system” argument is brought up as a rebuttal to the claim that trans inherently upends conventional gender, I’d agree that the argument is less problematic. (I still think it’s wrong, but it’s less problematic.)
However, I disagree with you that such a context is where the argument is “usually brought up.” A significant amount of the time I’ve seen the argument brought up — including the specific instance I quoted and responded to in my post — it’s brought up by feminists who are implying that the trans identity itself is inherently supportive of patriarchy.
I just wanted to quote this to acknowledge that we have areas of agreement. :-)
No one has argued or suggested that you (or anyone else) has to believe that transsexuality (which is what was being discussed in the Twisty thread, not “their methods”) are helpful in ending patriarchy and gender roles, so I think that argument is a bit of a strawtransactivist.
And of course you (and anyone else) are free to state your opinions. However, I (and anyone else) are free in turn to question whether stating opinions and arguments about how you think peoples core identities and survival tactics are helpful to patriarchy is appropriate and helpful.
I think it’s pretty dubious to question something like that — just as it would be to say “I don’t think it’s helpful that you’re Jewish” or “I think it’s hurting the cause that you’re heterosexual.” Yes, there are obvious instances in which being heterosexual does implicitly go along with a negative status quo — but that doesn’t make it a useful criticism, especially when we see the criticism brought up again, and again, and again.
And it’s a particularly dubious thing to do when the identity being questioned this way (again and again and again) is not a dominant identity like “heterosexual,” but instead that of a marginalized and discriminated against minority.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 8:37 am
3) This argument is also usually brought up in a context in which trans people (or pro-trans people) are making the argument that trans people are upending gender. To say that those who are arguing against an argument put forward by [pro-]transpeople is discriminatory towards transpeople is unfair (at best).
Actually, that argument is frequently a defense against the idea that transpeople are delusional patriarchal trend victims. So it’s unfair (at best) to look at it as a spontaneous claim to transgression.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Wow, Amp. Once again, you put into words what I’m thinking.
Right on. I think part of what I was thinking in #24 but didn’t articulate was that the whole ‘controvery’ reminds me of a group of mostly white activists sitting around explaining to to a black person that their identification as ‘black’ is counter-revolutionary, because after all, “race is an illusion,” and, “I’m 1/8th Cherokee myself ,” and, “aren’t we all working to end race?”
Maybe it’s just me, but I think there’s some hubris at work there. Listen to trans folk without telling them how they’re ’supposed’ to work.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 11:32 am
i’m a little confused here, so perhaps someone could explain what the argument regarding trans people supporting gender roles is really about. so when a man puts on a dress and makeup, and shaves his legs, he’s supporting male gender roles?
now before you answer, consider this: many of the people i know on-line and many of the people i know irl who don’t know i’m trans proport that they know a trans person when they see them. they argue that their “gaydar” (or “transgar” as the case may be) is 20/20. so i’m framing my above question in that context.
so if someone can clock a trans person as trans, then in fact, they are recognizing a man who presents himself in a role that is directly opposite his prescribed gender role. so how is that supportive of patriarchy and traditional gender roles?
see, either trans people as a group are supportive of patriarchy and the average trans person passes as a member of their target gender, or trans people are unending gender because they are recognizable as members of their birth sex. you can’t have it both ways, i.e. trans people are visably gender variant and they support the gender binary. it just doesn’t follow.
i’ve spent a lot of time with a large number of trans people. many of us do not pass completely as members of our target gender, especially m2f’s. we talk quite a bit about “passing” in our support groups, because it’s a big issue. because other people see us as upending gender, and that somehow disturbs them and we bear the brunt of their enforcement of gender roles.
many of the trans women who do pass as their target gender do not engage in traditional gendered behavior in many areas. most of the women i know at work think of me as some sort of radical feminist, because i never wear makeup, i haven’t shaved my legs in months, i talk about all the power tools i use, and so on. many of the trans women i know who do pass as their target gender are like me. we don’t wear dresses, we work on our cars, and we’re seen as rather masculine women. and half of us date only women.
perhaps the problem is that i’m not understanding what people mean when they say that trans people support gender roles. or, that people who make those arguments are getting their information about trans people from t.v., from shows like jerry springer. because if i got my information from t.v., and didn’t know any lesbians irl, i’d argue that lesbians support gender roles too - just look at most of the women on the “l” word.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 11:34 am
opps, sorry about the botched bold html formatting. i guess i thought i was on ezboards or something.
[Fixed! --Amp]
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Thanks for this, Amp.
nexyjo : I think Bean is pointing out that many trans women dress overly femme, and many trans men overdo the traditional masculine roles.
Bean, I want to point out a couple of things about the trans community:
- It does not exist as a monolithic entity. Criticizing all transgendered people on the fact that, yes, a sizable number of trans people do embrace traditional gender roles, is the error of letting any subsection of a minority speak for everyone in the minority.
- For a couple of generations, transgendered people were required by the medical establishment to undertake extremely traditional gender roles if they wanted to be allowed access to procedures and treatments that would allow them to become more comfortable with their bodies.
- The argument that transgendered people defy gender is recent, and comes out of Kate Bornstein’s work (Gender Outlaw) and that of xir contemporaries. That work — which came into the open VERY recently — is what is changing, actively, right now, the dynamic in the trans communities.
The older sector, those who have been convinced by doctors that they must “pass” for “normal” OR ELSE — well, many will be slow to change (and many are probably quite comfortable with their gender presentation as it is) — but really, if you look at a room full of transgendered people and a room full of average Americans, I don’t think the ratio of those who practice traditional gender roles is higher in the trans community — and as more people are growing up with the newer versions of the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care, and the less shockingly normative requirements for what a transgendered person “has” to be, I would say that among young trans people, at least, the ratio of people who practice traditional gender roles is quite low.
My friends include more femme trans men and butch trans women than the other way around, and looking around Portland and the internet, I see that my friends are part of a growing movement and culture practicing gender variance openly.
I am dealing with my own gender process on a basis of wanting to be able to take on as many different convergences of roles as possible.
Not saying Bean’s doing this, but some might take her arguments this way, so I want to preemptively defend against that: I do not think it holds water to be “anti” a specific group of human beings on the basis of the normative behaviors of a large number of their members. A lot of queer people are normative. A lot of POC are normative. A lot of women are normative.
A while back, someone made a post about makeup and beauty treatments being a different part of life and life experience for women growing up in different socioeconomic and racial categories — it was linked from here but I don’t remember where it was. It’s a good antidote to the ugly discourse that sometimes comes out of oversimplifying a minority like that.
This comment was written by A.J. Luxton.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Coming in late as always… Amp, I agree with every point made in your original post. But, since you have been the subject of a pile-on yourself, I wish the post had included a sentence or two making clear that Twisty herself was not the source of the anti-trans hate. People who don’t read I Blame The Patriarchy might easily read it that way. For those who haven’t been involved in the stoush, the comments appeared in a comments thread - a very long comments thread - on a topic that was completely unrelated to transexualism and was quite a few topics back in the blog.
Because Twisty, who has a full life including serious illness, did not notice the hateful comments until the controversy had blown up, she was held responsible for the opinions of the commenters on her blog.
Pretty unfair in my opinion, and I think a lot of ‘twisty hates transexuals!’ remarks were made in bad faith by people whose motives were less than honest.
IMO.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Alas talks about antitrans arguments and why they are illogical. I’m adding in that while some posit that transgender folk suffer from a ‘gender identity disorder’ it’s more like dude, let’s put some shit on a form for insurance purposes. Not to mention, it’s like, you can’t tell how a person will behave from the
This comment was written by Egotistical Whining.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 1:51 am
I’ve been wanting to write the great American blog post on transgenedered people and feminism, but my lack of knowledge on both subjects, especially in comparison to any number of highly qualified bloggers, has prevented me. Fortunately Ampersand
This comment was written by Raznor's Rants.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 9:01 am
I think I see both sides of the is it twisty’s fault debate. On one hand, you can’t just have hateful toolbags spouting horrid things all the time. Otherwise good discussion would be run off the site. On the other, it was the holidays and lucky did get banned I believe.
This comment was written by shannon.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 10:24 am
I’m planning to do a brief post about that tomorrow; I decided to do two separate posts, because I think they’re really two separate issues. But yeah, you’re right, I should have made it explicit that Twisty wasn’t the source of the anti-trans hate.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
[...] For the past week or so I’ve been digging through just about every post I could find about this post on I Blame The Patriarchy. I was planning on writing a mega-post in response to the different blog posts I found, but today I found this post by ampersand at Amptoons.com. Ampersand breaks it down better than I ever could. “Argument #1: The argument from freeform, irrational hatred of transsexuals. Luckynkl provided such an exaggerated example of drooling, bile-soaked hate that if I hadn’t known her for years, I would suspect she’s a sock puppet intended to discredit feminism. Here’s a couple of examples, drawn from a dozen or more similar statements: [...]
This comment was written by Any Excuse to Denigrate Radical Feminism at Transadvocate Blog.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Because Twisty, who has a full life including serious illness, did not notice the hateful comments until the controversy had blown up, she was held responsible for the opinions of the commenters on her blog.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Twisty was also getting flak because her response to people complaining about the lack of moderation was, essentially, big whoop, I was busy, what’s your issue and it’s not a big deal anyway. Which I personally believe has more to do with Twisty’s not liking to admit she’s ever wrong than with transhatred.
The comments themselves are head-scratching. What ever happened to “One is not born a woman; one becomes one”?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Here’s my beef, in a nutshell –
Transsexuals are accused of heinous crimes.
Transsexuals debunk said accusations.
More accusations of heinous crimes are levelled because transsexuals dared to respond.
I suppose it’s a pretty good gig if one can get it. Beats working for a living …
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Myhago,
Twisty did not go “big whoop”. She writes bliquely, yes, but substitute “going away, not enough keyboard time, and undergoing chemotherapy” for “not sufficiently constituted”…Here is what she wrote on 29 December (I for one didn’t have time to touch my blog in that time, and some commenters could have wreaked seven kinds of havoc, had they wished):
And in case some non-Twisty readers were drawn into the thread and are under the impression she’s some kind of Cotillion type who would never understand a transgender person, on 30 December she wrote:
In addition, once the pile on started, people started criticising irrelevant things like the ‘public cans of Austin’ series. Like, what’s with that, ewwww. Now I’m aware of the puritan heritage in the US which makes us a bit different from us ex-convicts and ratbags, but feminists and feminism are often attacked for ‘puritanism’ and it makes me cringe that some people would play into that puritan-humourless-and-earnest stereotype. And the same people are criticising Twisty for not being a good feminist. Gah.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Seems I’ve invented a new word - ‘bliquely’
This comment was written by Helen.Should be ‘Obliquely’
Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
(Sigh) another typo. ‘Makes Americans a bit different from us ex-convicts”…
This comment was written by Helen.I’ll go back to bed.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Card Me
A post by Ampersand on feminist anti-transsexual arguments reminds of something I’ve been kind of curious about: “Cards.” Not as in playing cards, or even Magic Cards (though both are very interesting), but as in “you’re playing the X Card,” wher…
This comment was written by The Debate Link.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Twisty did not go “big whoop”. She writes bliquely, yes, but substitute “going away, not enough keyboard time, and undergoing chemotherapy” for “not sufficiently constituted”…Here is what she wrote on 29 December (I for one didn’t have time to touch my blog in that time, and some commenters could have wreaked seven kinds of havoc, had they wished):
Yes, but that was her third response to the thread. Prior to that, she commented twice in the thread. The first time, she said this:
I stopped reading this thread when it turned, for no apparent reason, into a referendum on Sheila Jeffreys’ views on transgenderism, which do not interest me. Since then, it has been suggested that my failure to have commented on this “trannies: good or bad?” issue implies my tacit agreement with one faction over another.
Incorrect. It merely implies my lack of interest in a clump of commenters telling each other to fuck off. Not that you should stop or anything. But I personally gotta be in the mood.
My views on gender, inclusive of the trans-, cis-, or whathaveyou- varieties, are as follows.
Gender will not survive the destruction of patriarchy.
OK, carry on.
She initially equated “transsexuals are like serial flayers of women” with “well, that’s really offensive,” as though both kinds of assertions are no more complex than “Fuck off.” That’s not appropriate, and it definitely isn’t a condemnation of transphobic hate speech.
The second time, she finally, finally, told people to knock it off. And she still didn’t say that she’d noticed any hate speech herself, even though it would have taken about thirty seconds to find one of the buffalo bill comments.
The post you’re quoting from is a subsequent correction of those responses. She handled it badly, and that’s why people are offended.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Yea, this is why I’m glad I don’t run a big blog. I can just see me saying the wrong thing and it being just awful.
This comment was written by shannon.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 5:21 am
I think part of the miscommunication here is that there are a number of trans people in these conversations who, over and over, find ourselves jumping up and down and saying I don’t think that’s what makes a woman, either. Over and over, we’re told that this is clearly what we think, if we consider ourselves transgendered. Some of us do go along with that nonsense. A lot of us–including, I would imagine, the overwhelming majority of us represented in online feminist discussion groups–strongly disagree with those notions, too. And we get tired of being told what our positions are in debates without being asked, ourselves. You think your position is weird? Try holding a similar position and being trans.
This is a fairly coherent position, though I have my disagreements with it. I’m opposed to the idea that SRS is necessary to define someone’s social gender. 100%. It is not and should not be the be-all and end-all of what a transition is. For a lot of us, it’s an afterthought, or entirely optional–or we would like it to be. For a lot of us for financial reasons or political reasons it’s not even on the radar. I’m opposed to the obligatory nature of, or the automatic assumptions regarding, SRS, sure.
I am not, however, “opposed to SRS.” Not even just on a look-people-have-to-do-what-they-have-to-to-survive level, either, though that informs things. It’s a body-mod procedure, plain and simple, though it’s then heavily complicated by all of our society’s obsession with genitalia. Some people are happier with it. Some people don’t want it. Some of us are convinced it’s necessary to be something or other, and some of us aren’t. That’s none of my business or, I think, of anyone else’s. A person has the right to modify their body how they want to and interpret its meaning, period. If someone has the resources and the desire and is informed about the consequences, they ought to be allowed to freaking go to regarding how they would like to be comfortable in their skins.
I agree with you that it should be divorced from most of its baggage and that the surrounding politics need interrogation, Bean, but I cannot be “opposed to” an entire procedure that a lot of people find extremely helpful. I don’t have the right in the first place.
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 7:38 am
I usually sit these posts out and read only, since my experience is so limited and I learn more than I could possibly contribute. But I have to believe that if you identify yourself (or think you do) as being more comfortable in the other gender than the one you were born into (how can you ever know for sure), it makes a great deal of sense to me that you would “be more Catholic than the Pope” on issues perceived as highly relevant to gender, and in doing so you might make native inhabitants of the territory less than comfortable. I don’t think it’s an attack on men who are transgendered to state that they don’t really understand how limiting for women female stereotypes are because they have never been applied to them personally: No one assumes you are incompetent to do math and science, care mostly about appearance and marrying the right man, are more likely to be verbal and caring and all the rest of it. Feminists reject the stereotypical trappings of traditional femaleness as being the sine qua non of being female for good reasons, not because they don’t like women, or even women who won’t reject the trappings but because they have been turned around and used as a means of imposing significant limits on female autonomy and achievement. I am never in favor of hate speech, but certainly, it does seem to me that someone who was born in a man’s body should realize that, to the extent femaleness is a social construct, even if it’s not totally so, he doesn’t really understand female consciousness and the effort it takes to be seen as a person by those who reject the stereotypical conditioning. For a socially conditioned, biologically born male to ask to be seen as female — that’s always going to be a loaded issue for feminists.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Thanks for this, Amp.
(I’m not going to read the comments because I have a feeling there would be some ignorance expressed there that would ruin my Monday morning.)
This comment was written by Amber.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Bean, I think we can see eye-to-eye on this, anyhow. I find your position reasonable, myself, though I have some disagreements with details of it, as of your clarification.
I’m not opposed to doing the kind of criticism you’re doing, certainly.
Barbara, however, has proved my point above with breathtaking clarity.
Barbara, your speculations in your comment as to what must go on in a trans person’s mind, conditioning, decisions, or politics are based, by your own admission, in speculative extrapolations of your assumptions about what our lives must look like–and many of them are dismissive and disrespectful, despite their civil wording. Why don’t you discuss with one of us what our opinions are of, say, stereotypical femininity? Social constructs? I think you might be surprised at what you find.
Also, for the record? I wasn’t born in a man’s body. My body doesn’t belong to any man. It’s mine. And if I’m a woman, it’s a woman’s body.
This comment was written by little light.…for that matter, I wasn’t born into a boy’s body, either. I was born into an infant’s body, and as far as your concerns toward social conditioning go, you have no idea what mine looked like. I don’t mean this to be hostile; but it’s for the record.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 8:24 am
But little light, what’s good for the goose . . . I posit that all of us speculate to one degree or another about what goes on in another person’s mind, even another person who is “just like us”. But really, I am not speculating at all on what is going on in your or anyone else’s mind. I am stating what I believe to be an uncontroversial proposition: If you are born as a male you are not subjected to the usual female conditioning or stereotyping. I think this goes a long ways towards trying to understand why feminists react in ways that are unfriendly to transgendered women, and in many ways perplexing, given their supposed commitment to equlity. I recall reading about a man (a professor) who eventually underwent gender reassignment and upon being interviewed, said that the one thing that really struck him was the degree to which men talked right past or over him because he was now a she. Same guy, same brain, but way different perception: It’s not all about what’s going on in your head. The “born female” experience is different. I don’t think it’s a crime to point that out.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 8:27 am
I think that’s fair to say, Bean. (Also, I ought to apologize for my horrific sentence construction last comment. I’m tired, what can I say?) I just think that the way you’re approaching the question is a lot fairer than other formulations I’ve seen of similar claims. There are a lot of assumptions about what my socialization (or piny’s or Holly’s or nexy’s for that matter) looked like, and what my socialization looks like now. (Ten or twenty years being socialized one way, and the rest another, is very different in its way from fifty or sixty years socialized one way, and the rest another, I think you have to concede.) You’re acknowledging that there’s some variance in that experience, and not explicitly denying that what socialization that comes during and after a transition matters, too, o I can see where you’re coming from. Barbara doesn’t seem to be hitting the same nuance you are, perhaps out of her admitted lack of experience.
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 8:38 am
little light, there is a lot of variance in socialization, and I am assuming there is a vast variation in how transgendered people experience gender. But the crucial socialization period for girls is between the ages of 10 and 16 — during puberty. This is when girls frequently reject the possibility of “male” accomplishment for themselves, and begin developing ingrained patterns of socializing with men. I am not trying to express your experience, I couldn’t possibly do that, but you can’t mine or any other born female’s either. We can only be open to the possibility of dialogue.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Barbara:
That, I will happily concede. I would ask that you reread your first comment, though, and see if it makes sense where I’m coming from here.
I am not claiming my experience and yours have been the same. I don’t know any trans people, actually–though I’m sure they exist–who claim that their experiences are identical to those of cisgendered people of any stripe. (I do, however, find that every time this argument comes up I’m told that I must be claiming that my experiences are the same as that of a cisgendered woman. That’s interesting.) What I’m trying to open up is on the level of questions. There’s huge variance in socialization–why is yours more foreign to me, or mine to you, than that of any other woman of a vastly different demographic, for instance? Is the experience of a cisgendered woman of my ethnic, religious, class, and social background more intelligible to you–of different demographics, but still a cisgendered woman–or to me, and based on what criteria?
My socialization has been, doubtless, different from yours. But in your initial comment, you refused to honor the identities of trans people really at all, based on the grounds of these differences. I just want to point out a few things–for instance, the catch-22 in this conversation. If I speak up and stand up for my viewpoint here, I’m displaying male privilege and aggression, it might be claimed. If I don’t, then other people’s assumptions get to speak for me and once again my life and experiences go denied. Similarly, with the example of some of the stereotypes Bean brought up earlier: were I to display a stereotypically masculine behavior, it would be taken as evidence that I’m really socialized as a male, but were I to display a stereotypically feminine behavior, it would be taken as evidence that I’m buying into patriarchal notions of womanhood and basing my identity claims in that. If I say I think the stereotypes of “masculine” and “feminine” activities or qualities are nonsensical, then I’m ignoring the systems that make me irrevocably different from a cisgendered woman. If I try to talk about them, it ’s proof I’m invested in the structures of gender.
Thoughtful trans people have these conversations over and over. I myself get oversensitive to them, sometimes. They’re full of traps and pitfalls. When you start by talking about MtFs as “transgendered men,” as earlier, and make speculations as to what trans lives look like that directly contradict the statements of the numerous trans folk in this comment thread, it predisposes me to expect that you aren’t inclined to listen.
I’m glad that dialogue is happening, instead.
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 10:03 am
I sort of have to go to work, but I will just say that there is a tremendous amount of variety as to how women in different cultures and social backgrounds are socialized and acculturated, however, in almost all cases, the “female” is never the whole, human, trait that is the culture’s ideal, and women are acculturated to defer to the male, to a lesser or greater degree. And men learn this too. That’s why they have such a hard time listening to women. And if I keep harping on this, it’s because I face this daily. If I speak up I am rude. Women, at some very subliminal level, are like children and are not supposed to assume control, and not being heard is the first step towards that end. Nothing can be called universal, and experience in some cultures shows the potential for change. I can see your dilemma as well — and all I can say is that, this confusion over how to be taken seriously as a woman is one that women live with daily, and really, many women as well do not take other women seriously in professions, so it’s always a double fisted fight. If that’s what you are experiencing, you should color it as probably not all that dissimilar from a normal female existence, though I can see how in the particulars it’s probably a bit different from “the norm”. And it’s disappointing that feminists can’t step outside their own world to see where you are coming from.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 10:23 am
[...] I posted last week about why I consider the common anti-trans arguments invalid. My comment was inspired by a thread on I Blame The Patriarchy, Twisty’s blog. [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » I Don’t Blame The Twisty.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I’d like to apologize for being overly huffy and defensive in my last post. I know you didn’t mean “fashion magazines are not as bad as porn” or anything like that, bean, and I ought not to have been setting up spurious straw dogs to be mad about. I had to excuse myself from this thread for a while due to taking things a little personally and feeling attacked (unnecessarily, I think). I hope it’s at least remotely understandable why these kinds of dissections of trans people’s experiences and attitudes about gender might make some trans people (like me) touchy and raw, especially when it feels like the same exact misconstrual of a marginalized experience, over and over.
I think little light (as usual) is doing what I feel like is a very good job of representing trans experience in this thread. I just wanted to add one small thing, which is that I agree that transgendered women, with very few exceptions, generally don’t have the same socialization and childhood experiences as cisgendered women. I have seen some trans-positive advocates come awfully close to claiming that, usually as part of trying to say that the diversity of all women’s experiences should be included under the banner of “woman,” including trans women… but I don’t agree. In fact that would erase some of the diversity that we ought to be trying to recognize.
However I am also pretty sure that a lot of transgendered women have very different socialization and childhood experiences than cisgendered men have, and along gender lines. I really don’t know how hard this is to imagine from outside, but picture a child who is told that they’re one gender, but they fail to believe it, to some degree or completely. Like all children, trans children are subjected to gender socialization, exposed to messages that are intended for the gender they’re supposed to be as well as to messages that are meant for the “other” gender — in social situations as well as in mass media.
A lot of this stuff is unconscious or semi-conscious. A lot of it is hard to “figure out” exactly how you were influenced. But some of it you’re more aware of, even as a child. But I can tell you that I definitely wasn’t affected by “male” or “female” gender-socialization messages in the same way that I would have been if I had been a child that accepted my male assignment, or had been female and accepted that assignment.
I don’t think it’s necessary to equate transgendered experiences with cisgendered experiences. But I would like it if we could recognize that although society insists that there are only two boxes, and attempts to socialize us one way or another, there are a lot of us who are “factory rejects” and did not get “the right kind of programming,” even though I think there’s a lot of other invisible privilege that is unavoidable, which benefits you no matter how you think, if you’re classified as a privileged person (i.e. male). I know there are a lot of reasons to be suspicious of just taking this kind of statement at face value, but I also think it’s possible to look at the experiences of trans people and watch them speak for themselves.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 11:56 am
what if he doesn’t identify as a man or a woman? would he be a trans person then, and would he be supporting male gender roles? what about crossdressers? most crossdressers i know do identify as men, do wear dresses and makeup and shave their legs. and by definition, crossdressers are a group defined as falling under the transgender umbrella.
further, what if a man transitions, but doesn’t put on a dress and makeup, and doesn’t shave her legs, and moves through the world being seen as a woman who doesn’t follow female gender roles? is she supporting gender roles?
you know, i’ve spent a lot of time asking myself this same question. and after years of thinking about it, i still don’t know. i don’t know what it means to be a man either. so considering that, am i a trans person? i was labeled “male” when i was born, and now i’m labeled “female”, but to me, these are just labels. my identity hasn’t changed, only how people see me. i suppose we should be asking then, what does it mean to be trans. and does being trans, in and of itself, support gender roles. and how many behaviors of gender roles does one have to follow or reject, in order to be not following them? further, what about behaviors of which any manifestation is gendered? am i then not allowed to exhibit those types of behaviors?
i don’t mean to be not-picking, but this rabbit hole goes pretty deep.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
[...] Part of what’s fallen to the wayside is continuing to participate in the massive, multi-blog conversation about feminism and trans politics & identity. The conversation continues to move to new blogs and posts; one recent, active, and interesting thread is going on over at Alas, a blog. [...]
This comment was written by AngryBrownButch » Blog Archive » whew!.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Holly, I think that your analysis is spot on. I was trying to think of an analogy and the closest I could come is to think of a white person who lives among blacks, and identifies more with African American culture, music, etc., and decides that they really want to be black, and somehow manages to have that done medically. How would we view their claim to actually being black? It’s an imperfect analogy, I’m not at all saying it’s the same, but I think you can see how such a person would not have internalized messages of discrimination in quite the same way as someone who was born into the culture. I have to believe that transgendered women, as well as gay men, receive messages about what it means to be a boy or a man quite differently than other men — just as, for instance, a boy of slight build receives that message differently than one who is a brawny athlete. I think the personal should usually transcend the general, but the general does influence us and it’s unrealistic to pretend that it doesn’t. But that’s true on both sides of this equation, so it is unfair of feminists whose fight is at least partly for women to be seen and treated as people to deny the “personhood”, that is, the particularity of the experience, of others, whether men or transgendered women.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
That analogy annoys me, but I can’t articulate why.
This comment was written by shannon.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Maybe because race is even more of a social construct than gender?
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
The “race analogy” is another well-worn chestnut in these kinds of discussions. Usually it comes up as a way of discrediting trans people’s gender (i.e. “we don’t believe someone can change races, and we wouldn’t believe a white person who became black, so why should we accept gender changing either?”) That wasn’t how you phrased it, and thank you. However, the race analogy was also discussed a whole lot Feministe recently… specifically comparing trans people to “blackface.” So it might be better to just point at that discussion, specifically my post:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/12/28/okay/#comment-80170
In that post I talk about how if an analogy between gender and race is really necessary, then perhaps the most apt comparison would be to look at how identity and socialization works for multiracial people… especially those who might be perceived and treated one way while growing up/in their family, but might come to identify with a different racial identity as adults. This is far from a perfect analogy either, but I think it does point out how we construct race and gender with very different “rules” which are all artificial at some level. I’m both multiracial and trans, and I see a lot of parallels in experience, negotiating fixed “identity categories,” finding a place to exist intelligibly, etc.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
But I have to believe that if you identify yourself (or think you do) as being more comfortable in the other gender than the one you were born into (how can you ever know for sure), it makes a great deal of sense to me that you would “be more Catholic than the Pope” on issues perceived as highly relevant to gender… [emphasis mine]
Barbara, as a transsexual who knows many transsexuals, I can respectfully say that some are and some aren’t. The only way to know for sure how we feel about traditional gender roles, as with anyone, is to interact with us. And take care to not be blinded by preconceived notions.
As for the “how can you know for sure,” question, did you have to ask yourself when you woke up this morning whether you were a man, a woman, or something else? I’m guessing not, but that you knew the answer in your heart.
Transsexuals know, too. Our questions revolve around what we are going to do about it. Ignore the feelings of dysphoria, discomfort, and unhappiness and conform to the identity society has assigned? Or defy society, risk losing everyone and everything, and take action to live our lives in ways that ease the conflict.
This comment was written by brynn.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Just dropped in from Shake’s Sis and wanted to thank you for your rebuttals.
This comment was written by Erin M.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
i’m not going to try to read the comments right now (my head is still spinning from trying to push through the 300+ comments over at bfp’s post), but i just wanted to say thanks, amp.
This comment was written by vegankid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
What a strange argument. In practice, the patriarchy manifestly views transsexual rights as a threat. And that seems accurate to me. Maybe on some other planet or in some other time you could recognize transsexuals without weakening patriarchal thinking, but I don’t see it happening in America today. Pushing for a world where people can have SRS openly without threat of violence would clearly help change anti-feminist reactions, would attack people’s devotion to fixed gender roles in practice.
If you think that in a perfect world nobody would have SRS, I’m sorry, but I don’t care. Tell it to the New Capitalist Man.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
that women lose yet another space of their own? You betcha big time.”Et cetera. Ugh and ick and blech. I would pity such ignorant twits if they weren’t also so disgracefully hateful. (Twisty responds here and here.) Amp has an excellent post Responding To The Feminist Anti-Transsexual Arguments, to which I have nothing theoretical to add, though I will reiterate my estimation that rejection of pluralism veers dangerously close to the inflexible dictates of the dominant culture feminism means to change, and express my personal regret that
This comment was written by Shakespeare's Sister.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Forgot to add: bigots also think, correctly, that allowing transsexuals to live without discrimination when we recognize them would lead inevitably to changes in these social norms.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
“I don’t want to be labeled or known by a “gender” category (whether you have a binary or make up 231 categories). I tell people that I don’t like identifying as a woman because, for the life of me, I cannot figure out what it means to “be a woman.” The closest I can figure out and comfortably use is that it means a person who was labeled so by society in order to be kept subordinate in a patriarchal system that holds (often binary) gender categories to be the primary determinant of one’s lifecourse.”
hmm, I think that labels are good at times to relate to one another a common experience, but at times they don’t really fit. I mean, we use labels to describe our experience all the time…. as far as a gender binary, it’s fiction. Kinda like heterosexuality/lesbian/gay.
This comment was written by Marti Abernathey.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 12:16 am
“I dunno…I still don’t want a male, transgendered or not, who still has his/her male genitalia intact in the ladies’ room with me. Not as long as there are only flimsy partitions with broken locks and openings separating me from the rest of the room.
I could live with it if the stalls have floor to ceiling doors with good locks, but that isn’t so in most buildings. When I was in high school bullies used to kick down the stall doors in the girls’ room, and I still have nightmares about boys in the restrooms.”
Oh, goodie… I have to risk being raped or murdered because of your nightmares. I had to make a choice just this last Friday on which bathroom to use. Typically i hold it, because I don’t want to pee in a public restroom (both are freakin nasty disease ridden pits) at all, but I was about to explode.
This comment was written by Marti Abernathey.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 1:10 am
” Ironically, even feminist theory or queer theory or gender theory—in spite of their usefulness—are all generalizations and rough approximations. No theoretical model truly describes the real-life system it is based upon. The point at which we move beyond seeing these concepts as a set of useful tools and cease to distinguish them from the real systems (and actual human beings) that they approximate is the moment in which dogma is born.”
As I read this two words kept on echoing in my head…
FUCK YES!
Thank you StacyM, that is one of truest statements on a blog I’ve ever connected with. I almost got up started cheering… seriously!
:)
This comment was written by Marti Abernathey.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 1:31 am
“Transsexuals know, too. Our questions revolve around what we are going to do about it. Ignore the feelings of dysphoria, discomfort, and unhappiness and conform to the identity society has assigned? Or defy society, risk losing everyone and everything, and take action to live our lives in ways that ease the conflict.”
Amp, sorry for so many responses at once…I spent all weekend writing one post for transadvocate.com…. but there’s so much to respond to here… :)
Brynn, you’re right on about risking everything and everyone. Part of the reason I get so mad at some of these discussions about theory is that I have real life experiences of abuse and ridicule because I’ve lived openly. Much of this isn’t theory for me… it’s part of my reality.
This comment was written by Marti Abernathey.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 9:34 am
[...] http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/01/05/responding-to-the-feminist-anti-transsexual-arguments/ [...]
This comment was written by Playing Nice Here With Radical Feminists at Transadvocate Blog.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 10:13 am
I don’t need a surgically designed penis to ‘prove it to anyone, even myself.’
For me, surgery isn’t about *Proving* anything. It’s about making my body comfortable for *Me.* Not so I can prove to you I’m “really” one thing or another. You(in general) don’t even enter into the equation, because some people would approve, and many, many more would not. Can’t please all of the people all of the time. Hell, can’t even please some of the people all the time. So ya gotta please yourself.
You, along with the rest of humanity, are not and never will be my reason for srs, wether through your behavior, beliefs or actions. Again, I’m not doing this for you (in general) I’m doing this for me. Seems to me some people (Not you in particular) are stuck on the idea that all other people live to appeal to others, to garner affection from the ‘proper’ group they want to be in.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Also…I’m not sure the perfect world model of no gender category is realistic in the slightest. Besides that people are big fans of the idea of direct opposites, for someone not to care what another’s sexual configuration is, everyone would have to be “pansexual?” (I think that’s the right word, but I’m not sure.) Not everyone will be. The world will still have varying degrees of attraction based on genital configuration, wether they’re labeled ‘man,’ ‘woman,’ somthing totally different, or not labelled at all. Unless, of course, you think sexual attraction for All of the population is malleable. Labels or lack thereof doesn’t get rid of a tactile reality, wether sexual in nature or not. And humans especially want words to describe their reality so that others may understand them. I know different cultures find different things attractive because that’s what they’re taught is pretty, but mostly it relies on things that are optional to a human being, like long hair, lip disks and other various modifications, not on something you’re born with, but something that people can aquire, wether that aquiration is healthy or not. Although symmetry does seem to be a big plus.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 11:35 am
i agree with the first part of your assertion, before the second comma. but your “therefore” isn’t supported by any facts. while it may very well be true that people wouldn’t undergo surgery to fit into some patriarchal sex/gender schema, it is also true that people might undergo surgery to alter their bodies for other personal reasons.
we currently live in a very gendered world, so i can’t know how deeply my personal motivations for surgery were entrenched in my socialization. but i can say that i am quite happy with the way my body is now, compared with the way it was. these are real feelings for me, based on my personal experience.
theory is all well and good, but i think it’s important to understand that the theory that suggests that srs wouldn’t exist in a genderless society is just that - an untested theory; one that will remain untested unless and until we have a genderless society. and frankly, until that happens, i’m sticking with my truth, based on my personal experience.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
bean, read what I what said, what you quoted. You said exactly what I assumed you wanted to say — that in a perfect future as you envision it, nobody would have the surgery. You say this because you ignore the words of (some) actual transsexuals in favor of what you know they must really want, because you know the truth of history and human nature. I don’t care what you think you know. Tell it to the New Capitalist Man.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I’d love to know where this Utopian place is. Till you find it, we live in a real world. One where transwomen that don’t have SRS are more likely to be murdered, discriminated against, and exploited. Sorry, I’m not going to be the Christ for your Utopian dream.
This comment was written by Marti Abernathey.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
from within, co-opting feminism and perverting it to their own destructive purposes. Similarly, making gender-dysphoric people out to be mole agents for the Patriarchy in the War Between The Sexes just doesn’t make sense to me.” And Ampersand, at Alas, A Blog! broke down the discussion into five main arguments and rebutted each one. But she admits that trans issues pose ideological problems for feminists: “In a sense, those transsexuals who move from one sex to the other
This comment was written by The Prodigal Hub.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
hello all,
Very interesting discussion here - I truly appreciate that writers seem focused on actual dialogue, learning, growing, etc. Also, I like the cool little drawings between posts.
This thread reminds me of my experiences 10 years ago as a Lesbian Avenger (a radical political group fighting for lesbian rights and having a good time doing it) when a trans woman asked us if she would be welcome to join our chapter.
There were probably 10 core members in our chapter, all self-identifying feminists and lesbians/queer women, and of many genders (femme lesbians, butch dykes, androgynous, etc).
Some of us were reluctant to invite her into the group, though we wondered why we would question membership for any self-identifying woman. We realized that most of us felt threatened, fearing that since she had been socialized as male she would take up a lot of space, talk over us, or dominate the group. Few of us had any experience doing activism with transpeople.
When we explored the question further, we realized that not all of us were perfect, and some of us talked more than others, or were more involved in decision-making, or sometimes interrupted other women, or said things that hurt each others’ feelings or were oppressive. In the end we decided to welcome her into the group. We didn’t want a double standard, or to be gatekeepers - if there were problems, we would solve them as a group, reacting the same way we would to any other member’s less-than-delightful behavior.
One of the things we talked about was whether all women’s experiences were similar. What does make someone a woman or a girl? Now when I think about it, since I see the differences in women’s, girls’ and females’ life experiences as pretty broad(imagining experiences of class, geography, ability, skin color, historical setting, ethnic heritage, sexuality, language, age, etc.), I wonder if the differences between trans- and non-trans-women’s experiences are greater than between any other “type” of woman or girl? And how would we know?
I get a sense that a lot of the reluctance to embrace transwomen as “real” women is based on fear, a fear of losing something (I know that was true for us back in my Avenger chapter). It makes me wonder though, what are people afraid of? Can anyone articulate what would be lost if woman-identified transfolks were welcomed into feminist or women’s space?
This comment was written by nostalgia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 8:48 am
While we’re forming impressions, bean, I want to make it clear that while you and I differ on some points of doctrine, as it were, I think there’s a lot of common ground here.
I understood you to be saying that while your ideal world would render procedures like SRS obsolete or eliminate them, you recognize that this is not yet that world, and allow that such procedures do some good for the people who get them, even if only on a level of expedience and survival–and that, as such, you don’t advocate banning them until such time as the world gets safer for people to express gender variance. (Correct me if I’m off on my interpretation, please.)
My ideal looks different. I would love to see procedures like HRT and SRS decoupled from their current gatekeeper/obligation status, and I want to see a culture that lets a person live in whatever gender they find truth in, whatever their anatomy, as I think you do; I don’t, however, find SRS itself inherently anti-feminist. Its current baggage is extremely problematic, but putting such huge significance on it is part of the same problem that makes us culturally obsess over genitals in the first place. While I concede that not every choice is a feminist choice, I also wholeheartedly believe in a person’s right to determine the shape and meaning of their own body apart from harm done to others, as part-and-parcel of my own feminism. I don’t think that eliminates the possibility of trans women with penises or trans men with vulva; I think, in the World to Come, as it were, it opens up the options for ciswomen who want phalluses and cismen who want vulva, and so on. I don’t think the genitals make the gender, either, nor should they be the line drawn for gender transition; but if we’re making them only as significant as hair color or shoulder width or any other random physical trait, I don’t see why those who come after us oughtn’t live in a society where those features can be changed just as readily as the others, without a blink. If we eliminate gender hierarchy and women’s oppression, SRS may become obsolete; but it may also become a nonissue through its casual, commonplace unimportance.
As far as I’m concerned, that said, we can shake hands for now. My ideal future looks different than yours in some of its details, but we can certainly agree that in the world as it stands now, however we think an ideal world will change treatment of transgender issues, people at a disadvantage need to be taken care of.
Marti, I think this is a point that needs stressing–while I think in a lot of details, my ideals may share more content with yours than with bean’s, bean isn’t advocating against trans people, or their immediate needs, here.
When your neighbor’s house is burning down, to fiddle a bit with a good analogy I heard the other day, the first order of business isn’t to debate the nature of combustion–nor is it to have a panel discussion of the future’s firefighting techniques. The first thing ought to be to get lives out of danger and put out the fire, and then work out how to make house fires more preventable with what resources are available right now, and then, when there’s a moment for breath and nobody is at the moment on fire and the ambulances are en route to the ER, to have our arguments about how to rebuild the house.
Our opponents are the people who say “Let them burn,” not the people who can agree with us on putting fires out but have a different architectural ideal for what to build on their ashes. If someone’s willing to go back-to-back with me, as far as I’m concerned, they’ve earned a measured and civil discussion when it gets down to the nuts and bolts. Someone can be in solidarity without being in complete accord.
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 10:03 am
That’s not my assumption, no.
My assumption was that people want words to describe themselves, and that people often like the idea of polar opposites exclusively with very little wiggle room. Ergo, I don’t think getting rid of gendered words would work, no matter what someone’s body configuration is.
Also that since there’s two ‘main’ body configurations biologically, there will always be two visual body sexes (Or however many may be created), and that people will try and shoehorn others into them.
If, through some miracle of vision, the sex categories *Are* abolished in your perfect utopia, what will the people who are primarily/only attracted to people with certain types of genital configurations call themselves?
Because unless everyone is attracted to everyone else, which I also don’t think is likely, they’re going to want words to describe themselves, whether based on genitals or mannerisms or whatnot.
Because they will want words, it’s humanity’s nature to categorize things. Those descriptive words could or would easily take the place of gender descriptors like male and female. Failing that humanity refuses to describe itself at all in regards to other human beings, the possibility of which is virtually nonexistent, I don’t see how your utopia is possible.
And I do not mean that sexual identity (trans issues) is the equivalent of sexual orientation. There is indeed a difference between what one resembles and what one likes.
I wasn’t talking about trans issues there; I was talking about humanity in general, because everyone has genitals.
I do hope that’s clearer.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Is there an edit button? I messed up horribly on the blockquotes.
[There's no edit button -- at least, not one that non-admin types can access :-) -- but I fixed the blockquote formatting. --Amp]
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Bean writes:
Here’s the deal — I don’t think it’s your place to decide that. It’s not your place any more than it’s my place to tell feminists of color what their issues or life experience are all about. They — feminists of color — are the experts on their own issues. They are the authority, not me.
Feminism isn’t supposed to be about one group telling another group what they are, or how that group experiences being whatever it is they experience. If you think “trans” is patriarchal, fine, you lay out your reasoning and that’s that. When someone rebuts your repeated assertions that trans people are stereotypical pawns of patriarchy by pointing out that their lives substantially differ from your repeatedly expressed stereotypes, you’re not supposed to tell them that they are wrong, or making it up, or just plain ignore them and repeat the stereotypes again in 3 or 6 months the next time some board errupts into The Great Trans Controversey. That’s just flat out NOT feminist behavior. It’s what is so maddening about the never ending cycle of The Great Trans Controversy.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 10:42 am
(And to clarify — my use of “you” in the second paragraph of 125 is the generic plural “you”, not a specfic individual “you”.)
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
“Feminism isn’t supposed to be about one group telling another group what they are, or how that group experiences being whatever it is they experience.”
But feminism IS about the non-subordination of women that subordination has included being defined by others and not ourselves. As part of the feminist project, women get to decide who we are, not men, not people who have said they are men.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I believe FurryCatHerder was responding to Bean’s post using it as an example of when telling someone what their own beliefs are is an unfeminist act, especially when the assumptions about the beliefs in question are totally off.
I don’t believe anyone here disagrees with your statement Minerva, so I’d be curious to know why that particular response is warranted to FurryCatHerder’s comment. How do women defining themselves and having others define themselves as the group they identify with clash? Further, I don’t believe I’ve said wether I considered myself a man, women or something else entirely in either of my responses to Bean on this thread or anywhere else. I did say I wasn’t constructing a penis due to societal restraints on gender roles or other’s expectations of myself, but nowhere did I say I considered myself a man, or that I was even planning a phalloplasty in my particular choices of surgery. *** And for all intents and purposes since I’m not defining myself as a woman, you don’t need to know what I identify with as it’s none of your business.
***Incidentally, I’m unsure why the word phalloplasty is bandied about as the transman’s ultimate goal in other posts around the blogsphere I see when people question the trans community. It makes me wonder wether people are paying attention to the simple fact that’s it’s not usually employed. The cost, health risks and the high rate of complication make it an option I shy away from, though for others it’s perfectly reasonable. Never mind, of course, that without said techniques the difference is easily spottable from the waste down. It probably makes it easier for people to negate their own privlege by assuming everyone else has the oppertunity or the want to look like the majority of who they identify with.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
“How do women defining themselves and having others define themselves as the group they identify with clash? Further, I don’t believe I’ve said wether I considered myself a man”
Arrogant worm,
In no way was I referencing you or your experience nor did I notice that a response was made to bean. If I may, I’d like to address your questions as I address defects in trans ideology. Trans ideology would have it that women are natural objects as does patriarchal thinking. In trans-think a woman is something that someone having lived as can just be. In short, trans ideology would have it that someone having lived as a man can simply become an object because that’s the way men see women as objects, or they may latch onto various categorizations of gendered behavior, see that they are “feminine” and decide that they have the object properties of woman objects.
Feminists KNOW that women are not objects that women are socially constructed out of life experiences which men do not and cannot have. Therefore there is no social construction as a woman and therefore men may become simulacra of what they see as objects and objectify. Claiming an identity of “woman” as an object is something that any man can do and herein lies the conflict. Women have identities which are also socially constructed and that construction has come from our life histories. For someone have lived as a man to claim the label of woman is both an objectification, co-optation and annexations of our experiences. If women get to say who we are, it would follow that we have the power to specify that which has constituted us through our own feminist scholarship. We also have the ability to specify what does not constitute which pretty specifically is life as a man.
Feminists see through gender. We see that the basis for transgender ideology is hollow and is a set of understandings emerging from the perspectives of men and how they see the world. We also see that the raison etre of the trans movement lies is centrally rooted in the very thinking that justifies the oppression of women. The central ideology of the tran movement at it’s core is oppressive to women. The idea the gender is real is an assertion there are natural differences in women and men and in patriarchy those constructed difference are the very core of patriarchy itself.
When women define ourselves and men define themselves as women with the weight of patriarchal rationales, then again, women are disempowered. We are not able to establish needed and healing boundaries and again are disempowered in the face of what is, at core, a male movement to even say who we are.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I am continually amazed that so many trans people can have written about how they don’t necessarily think “gender is real,” how social construction is so central to gender, and how there are problems with assuming that “identity = gender” is the whole of any story… and yet “trans ideology” is still something else entirely, that is being attributed to trans people.
Where does this “trans ideology” come from, anyway? Is it originally from, by, and about trans people? Or is it simply about trans people, but written by someone else entirely — say, doctors in the medical establishment, theorists using trans people as objects to prove some kind of point about gender, novelists and songwriters looking for strange outsider characters?
Those “trans ideologies” are certainly the first that have appeared in contemporary culture and are still defining narratives and myths in many ways… for many trans people, too. I hope more trans people can continue to think outside of these stories and tell their own stories — and I hope feminists will listen.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
“and yet “trans ideology” is still something else entirely, that is being attributed to trans people.”
It has named itself the “trangender movement” has it not? And how many references in this thread have been made to transgendered people? They do ot refer to themselves as neocins for eaxample, many, many many refer to themselves as transgendered which is very often becomes the basis of their self understanding.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
It has named itself the “trangender movement” has it not? And how many references in this thread have been made to transgendered people? They do ot refer to themselves as neocins for eaxample, many, many many refer to themselves as transgendered which is very often becomes the basis of their self understanding.
Not all transgendered people are part of a movement, not even half, I don’t think. No more than in any other movement, certainly.
When one is creating language for a concept that is in most circumstances squashed like a bug by the general public, I ask you to give others a bit of time to work through language meanings as they see them, and not credit the word ‘transgendered’ with one definition, as it means many things to many, many different people, and means absolutely nothing to others who don’t wish to ascribe it to themselves or have others ascribe it to them.
Also, I’m not sure about this, but by self-understanding you mean a personal identity, right? Do you consider identifying as transgender as bad, and if so, why? The word in and of itself harms no one; it describes people who flout the current gendered social or physical ‘norms.’ And if you do consider it bad, for whatever reason, what about other people who identify with a minority community that has specific oppressions due to their status? Oppressions are tangled with each other, some people identify more with one cause then another, or with more than one but find themselves having to ‘choose sides’ and, as such, choose an identity.
I’m working through your concepts in post 129, and writing my reply, but I’m afraid it’s going to take a bit of time, won’t be up for another hour, at least.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
While I concede that not every choice is a feminist choice, I also wholeheartedly believe in a person’s right to determine the shape and meaning of their own body apart from harm done to others, as part-and-parcel of my own feminism. I don’t think that eliminates the possibility of trans women with penises or trans men with vulva; I think, in the World to Come, as it were, it opens up the options for ciswomen who want phalluses and cismen who want vulva, and so on. I don’t think the genitals make the gender, either, nor should they be the line drawn for gender transition; but if we’re making them only as significant as hair color or shoulder width or any other random physical trait, I don’t see why those who come after us oughtn’t live in a society where those features can be changed just as readily as the others, without a blink.
Thanks. As someone who relates to gender IDENTITY as a giant can of worms and relates to any and all physical adaptations as voluntary body mods that may or may not have anything to do with gender identity, I just want to say “me too” a lot.
This comment was written by A.J. Luxton.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
“Not all transgendered people are part of a movement, not even half, I don’t think. No more than in any other movement, certainly.”
There you go…. You just referred to them as “transgendered” That rather makes gender real. What they call themselves, is certainly trans ideology. I believe you just made my case for me.
“When one is creating language for a concept that is in most circumstances squashed like a bug by the general public, I ask you to give others a bit of time to work through language meanings as they see them, and not credit the word ‘transgendered’ with one definition, as it means many things to many, many different people, and means absolutely nothing to others who don’t wish to ascribe it to themselves or have others ascribe it to them. “
This is another feminist concern. “Gender” has never really been defined but in common parlance, is understood to be the delineating set of natural difference between natural male objects and natural female objects having pre-social gendered characteristics and trans ideology promulgates these very concepts.
“Also, I’m not sure about this, but by self-understanding you mean a personal identity, right?
That may be one dimension. If we understand identity to be a reflexive self-interpretation, that’s what I am referring to part in parcel.
“Do you consider identifying as transgender as bad, and if so, why?”
If gender really doesn’t exist and is a social construct which I believe to be the case, why adopt a construct as a ontological condition? What one considers oneself may not be bas however the trans movement is famous for an empirialistic quality which is to “educate”. The trouble what ios propagated is a set of distortions just as I am pretty sure the language you refer to, is such a set of distortions. Yes, I can support that “transgender” as an identity reifies gender and in turn, hurts women.
“The word in and of itself harms no one; it describes people who flout the current gendered social or physical ‘norms.”
Gender harms women – do not kid yourself. Eighty seven percent of congress is men. Women make thirty cents to the dollar less than men and one woman is raped every four minutes. That’s gender. That’s totally gender. I would submit from what you have said here, that your understanding of gender is very much at odds from the feminist understanding of gender.
“ And if you do consider it bad, for whatever reason, what about other people who identify with a minority community that has specific oppressions due to their status?”
I don’t think the community is at all a legitimate community, especially in the way that it understands itself.
“Oppressions are tangled with each other, some people identify more with one cause then another, or with more than one but find themselves having to ‘choose sides’ and, as such, choose an identity.”
I don’t worry about identity politics. I worry about the oppression of women. Typical of identity politics, you grant primacy to trans mythologies. My concerns are women.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
“I don’t think the genitals make the gender, either, nor should they be the line drawn for gender transition; but if we’re making them only as significant as hair color or shoulder width or any other random physical trait,”
This statement is exactly what I am talking about. “Gender” is conceptualized as something that is real and true. It’s this very anchoring to naturalism which provides the central justification for the oppresion of women.
Given that this understanding of gender is wholly spurious it’s simply a queer/trans echo of patriarchy itself. Thus the trans movement is in bed with patriarchy and can in no way be considered revolutionary or radical.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
“Feminists KNOW that women are not objects that women are socially constructed out of life experiences which men do not and cannot have. ”
What life experiences are those?
This comment was written by Marti Abernathey.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
The consistent experience of being “less than” and a second class citizens, experiencing a world whose god is the “other” and not me. Having the default sex be the “other”. Livinf in a so-called democracy where, is am so transparent that no one asks what’s wrong with, “all men are created equal.” Having to live within the confines of an implicit male standard. Having my sexuality defined by men. Having my body pornogriphied. Being dissected by the male gaze. On the average women make 238 small almost unconscious decisions a day to avoid rape and a million other day to day differences that men are not subjected to.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Oh, please. You want to talk second class citizen? a tranwoman is more likely to be objectified, sexualized, and demoralized than a natal female. As far as being raped, you don’t think that happens to transwomen? The difference is that typically we aren’t just raped, we’re murdered as well. If you don’t believe me, see http://rememberingourdead.org. If it’s oppression you’re talking about, we get it in boatloads. We’re more likely to be murdered and more likely to be sex workers because that’s the only work that is available after we transition.
This comment was written by Marti Abernathey.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
So let me see if I understand this right, a “woman” is a true social construct, but gender is a false one?
This comment was written by Marti Abernathey.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
I suggest you read closer. A woman is socially constructed. It’s a queer/pomo position to say the women are social constructs. Those are two very different concepts.
I’m not concerned with “transwomen”. I am concerned with women.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
It’s very “thirdwave” to have diluted feminism into concerns about all oppressions. Feminsim addresses the oppression of women. With such a diluted approach, feminism is diverted into issues that removes women from the centrality we created the movement for. Once again, women find ourselves in the backseat with everyone else in the front seat. This is where third wave adoption of multiple oppressions theory has really hurt the feminist movement horizontally.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Golly then, it sounds like you should transition after all. It’s bad for your health.
This comment was written by NotAPrettyGirl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition definition of ideology.
i·de·ol·o·gy Pronunciation
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of
an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political,
economic, or other system.
Trans ideology the term as you use it can not be considered an
ideology because, to my understanding, not all people
that could be considered transgender identify as transgender,
and some that do identify as transgender aren’t in such a
movement, nor do all people that could conceivably be
classified as transgender have the same political, economic,
social, or moral beliefs regarding gendered opinions or ideas.
This is a statement that proclaims, in no uncertain terms, what
a mythical ideology believes of the social/gender of what
a large portion of society considers female, without asking
said group their views on ‘cross gendered’ behaviors.
(Granted, there’s no such group, as stated above because
the people who could be conceptualized as transgender don’t
display the requirements for the definition of an ideology, or even
a concentrated group of opinions set to represent transgenders
as a whole.)
In short, trans ideology
would have it that someone having lived as a man can simply
become an object because that’s the way men see women as
objects,
Such a sweeping statement that all men view women as objects
does not ring true in my experience, nor, I doubt, in others’.
Assigning foul motives for half the human race is…rude.
Also, I’m curious as to what you believe the other half of the
transgendered population’s motives which convieniently get left
at the wayside. If male-to- self described identity co-opt the label
woman because they feel it is an object to be aquired, what do
female- to- self described identity people do?
Many self-identified and self-described transgendered people refute
this opinion. Many mtf’s/mt- describe themselves as not particularly
feminine, and not aiming to be, now that they have that option in some
places. For years it was required by the medical establishment to be
considered for the transition process at the time, and if they weren’t
considered feminine enough, by whatever measure, be it socially or
physically, they were rejected.
In the third blockquote above you typed that “In trans-think a woman
is something that someone having lived as can just be” which you
disagreed with. This clashes with the quote above as such that
‘…women are socially constructed out of life experiences which men
do and cannot have.” If one is living life as being viewed as a woman
in society, not a man, they are indeed living life as a woman and as such
are woman by your own definition as stated above. There’s also people
with androgen insensitivity, and for intents and purposes they’re gendered
in society as female yet have a y chromosome. Do they not exist, wether
they identify as female or not?
If they are living their lives in society as women, by your own definition
they are women by lived life experiences. Perhapes you meant there’s a time limit to living as
a gender that negates anything after it? To me, that reasoning is shoddy,
as it assumes that all women have a minimum of one thing in common
and are thus snagged in the gender they were declared at birth, as
are men by your reasoning. I can not think of one thing that every single
woman would have in common with every single other woman, and the
same goes for men. Not even growing up in society gendered as female
do all biological women have in common as there’s personal and
autobiographical information that proves otherwise. Nor can patriarchal
oppression define womanhood as such oppression differs throughout the
world, and all people suffer in varying degrees from it.
If women have identities which are also socially constructed, well…
where does the word “also” come in? I saw nothing you typed
mentioning another way for a woman to be made/created/born
besides lived experiences. To co-opt is to take away from a rightful
owner. I don’t believe one can have sole ownership of an entire gender,
just that they may identify and claim their own experiences and use that
gendered label for themself. For one to stake claim to an idea or an
experience that one percieves themself to be experiencing
does not annex, negate or erase another person’s experience.
It does, however, add another way of being within the group that they
identify with.
You have the power to specify yourself in a group. One does not, nor
should, have the power to claim what an entire group of people is.
Identifying with an idea/concept/experience is and should be left for
individuals, not up for public debate as if it were a club.
I’ve no doubt some feminists see through gender constructs.
Some self-identified feminists, however, applaude gender constructs.
Self-identified feminists as a group have the differing opinions, just as
any other group.
Of course transgender ideology is hollow; such a thing as of yet doesn’t
exist in a concrete form. Nor will it, I don’t think. The ‘transgender
movement’ such as it’s called for lack of a better term, as I understand it,
is people trying to acheive the right to live as they please with laws in place
that protect such decisions.
I’m sure some of the ‘transgender movement’ would be pleased to see that
you also identify them as men, as that is how they self identify themselves.
However, you continue to cut out female-to-self identity in the perspectives
of what consitute the ‘transgender movement.’ One can not pretend
that roughly half the transgender population doesn’t exist when formulating
“Transgender Ideology” as you did with your statement above.
The ‘transgender movement’ again, as I know it and am living it,
is not to my knowlege oppresive to women. Having lived as a woman
for 23 years, you’d think I would have spotted myself screwing the
woman society believes me to be, over. That hasn’t yet occured.
I believe gender as a construct is false, and that your opinion of what
natural differences between the two sexes that you claim all of the
‘transgender movement’ ascribe to by default is also false as well
because my beliefs are not what you claim, and I am part of the
‘transgender movement.’
Again, you have every right say who you yourself are. You have no right to speak
for any woman but yourself, no right to decide who gets to be part of a
group. It’s not a club; There should be no heirarchies.
Women may have many intersecting issues, as I’m sure you’re aware.
A woman may be poor as an example. She is still a woman dealing with
those problems that her social gender contributed to, like the wage gap.
I believe the ‘hurt’ you ascribe that third wave feminism is responsible for
is actually others recognizing and attempting to take care of the intersecting
problems that matter to them and the people they care about instead of
focusing on rich/middle class white women.
Concluding, I must respectfully disagree with your opinions.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
I haven’t had a chance to read every thing yet BUT
“2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political,
economic, or other system.”
This is exactly the framing that I am using the word ideology and it’s quite correct, thank you. This will negate part of your thesis but I’ll look it over anyway. :)
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:12 am
What, you want me to type out all the myriad ways in which transgender people are considered to tresspass on social/physical/ideological gendered norms as it relates to each individual? No thank you, I’ll shorten in to ‘transgendered.’
The key word is system. You can not have a system made of one part. Each individual is one human being.
My thesis’s are much, much longer. That was a post.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:13 am
It’s typical of transphobes to ignore ftm transfolk, but the fact that it’s common doesn’t make it any less irksome.
You’ve constructed elaborate arguments/rants/theories about how transgendered issues work, seemingly without reference to what transgendered folk themselves believe, and have conveiniently addressed only a portion of the trans community while doing it.
According to your theories, ‘trans ideology’ would also have it that men are ‘natural objects,’ but in your rush to paint all trans thought as part of a patriarchial conspiracy (To do what . . . help people feel more comfortable in their skin? Those Bastards!) You’ve ignored that.
Reject your sexist blinders, and realize that there are a panopoly of genders out there. Not all transfolk are mtf. Not all transfolk are ftm.
Not all transfolk are either ftm or mtf.
There are other options.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:38 am
“ This is a statement that proclaims, in no uncertain terms, what a mythical ideology believes of the social/gender of what a large portion of society considers female, without asking said group their views on ‘cross gendered’ behaviors.
(Granted, there’s no such group, as stated above because the people who could be conceptualized as transgender don’t display the requirements for the definition of an ideology, or evena concentrated group of opinions set to represent transgenders as a whole.)”
Excuse me but you seem to be begging your own nullified question as I demonstrated. “Transgender” is a myth born on the back of women because gender is a only a social reality in patriarchy. You speak of gender as if is an object reality which it isn’t. Remember I said pretty clearly the “transgender” is a house of constructs having the same properties as a house of cards.
““Trans ideology would have it that women are natural objects as does patriarchal thinking.”
This statement still stands.
“Such a sweeping statement that all men view women as objects does not ring true in my experience, nor, I doubt, in others’. Assigning foul motives for half the human race is…rude.”
I’m a radical feminist, not the fun kind. ;)
“Also, I’m curious as to what you believe the other half of the transgendered population’s motives which convieniently get left at the wayside. If male-to- self described identity co-opt the label woman because they feel it is an object to be aquired, what do female- to- self described identity people do?”
I don’t really care. My concern is women.
“or they may latch onto various categorizations of gendered behavior, see that they are “feminine” and decide that they have the object properties of woman objects.”
“Many self-identified and self-described transgendered people refute this opinion. Many mtf’s/mt- describe themselves as not particularly feminine, and not aiming to be, now that they have that option in some places.”
I did say “OR” didn’t I? I didn’t name at least two conditions. So your many doesn’t negate anything I said.
“ For years it was required by the medical establishment to be considered for the transition process at the time, and if they weren’t considered feminine enough, by whatever measure, be it socially or physically, they were rejected.”
Bravo. I wonder if there isn’t something we need to discuss? I don’t accept trans testimony as evidence of much. You argue as if they are a central force, to me they are a poltical diversion for feminism away from women’s issues.
“In the third blockquote above you typed that “In trans-think a woman is something that someone having lived as can just be” which you disagreed with.
This clashes with the quote above as such that
‘…women are socially constructed out of life experiences which men do and cannot have.” If one is living life as being viewed as a woman in society, not a man, they are indeed living life as a woman and as such are woman by your own definition as stated above.”
There are several problems here. The primary issue is that they have not been socially constituted as women – meaning no social construction, therefore they are simply simulacra. The other issue is that Marti observed the likelihood of killing, rape and prostitution at an enormous rate. So the don’t have the experiences of the majority of women. Secondly, you seem oblivious to issues such as gendered sandpoint, but then again you’d have to be since such obliviousness are hallmarks of the tran movement.
“There’s also people with androgen insensitivity, and for intents and purposes they’re gendered in society as female yet have a y chromosome. Do they not exist, wether they identify as female or not?”
GREAT ARGUMENT FOR SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION! THANK YOU. I’ve said nothing about biology at all.
If they are living their lives in society as women, by your own definition they are women by lived life experiences. Perhapes you meant there’s a time limit to living as a gender that negates anything after it? To me, that reasoning is shoddy, as it assumes that all women have a minimum of one thing in common and are thus snagged in the gender they were declared at birth, as are men by your reasoning.”
May we consider something. Marti was arguing for “transwomen” not women. So Marti isn’t woman centered or woman identified, marti is trans-identified based on Marti’s politics. Apparently Marti’s alliances and identity is not that of a woman but trans. That’s not a woman’s experience. There is not such things as a “a gender”. Gender is a verb and not a noun. It’s something that is done to people, not something that people have.
“Not even growing up in society gendered as female do all biological women have in common as there’s personal and autobiographical information that proves otherwise. Nor can patriarchal oppression define womanhood as such oppression differs throughout the world, and all people suffer in varying degrees from it.”
There is something that women do not have in common. They don’t live as adult men. Would you not agree?
“Nor can patriarchal oppression define womanhood as such oppression differs throughout the world, and all people suffer in varying degrees from it.”
Universally, no matter what the culture (except perhaps one) women are the underclass of men. That is a universal.
“I don’t believe one can have sole ownership of an entire gender, just that they may identify and claim their own experiences and use that gendered label for themself.”
There’s no such thing as “a gender”. You keep using it as a noun. It’s a verb.
“For one to stake claim to an idea or an experience that one percieves themself to be experiencing does not annex, negate or erase another person’s experience.”
You mean like having what appears to be a socially normal male existence and suddenly “figuring out” you’re a woman? That “experience”? But the claim the experience of women after having been adult men. They obviously have been neither socially constituted by the experiences that women have, so yes they are annexing the experiences of women.
“You have the power to specify yourself in a group. One does not, nor should, have the power to claim what an entire group of people is.”
For thousands of years, men have been defining what women are. It’s our turn.
“Some self-identified feminists, however, applaude gender constructs.”
I don’t pay any attention to how someone “identifies”. Christina-Hoff summers identifies as a feminist but that doesn’t make her one. She’s the greatest male apologist there is.
“Of course transgender ideology is hollow; such a thing as of yet doesn’t exist in a concrete form. Nor will it, I don’t think. The ‘transgender movement’ such as it’s called for lack of a better term, as I understand it, is people trying to acheive the right to live as they please with laws in place that protect such decisions. “
You mean these poor people confuse their very Being with a striving?
“However, you continue to cut out female-to-self identity in the perspectives of what consitute the ‘transgender movement.’ One can not pretend that roughly half the transgender population doesn’t exist when formulating”
Well let’s not accuse the transgender movement of formulating. There’s obviously nothing to suggest that. I really don’t care about excursions in manhood.
“The ‘transgender movement’ again, as I know it and am living it, is not to my knowlege oppresive to women.”
Your knowledge base is the reference here? My Goodness! I’ve outlines very clear how the dynamics work. Humbly, I’d suggest that the re-read what I said.
“I believe gender as a construct is false”
But it doesn’t make any difference what you believe. This isn’t a church.
Feminism is a political movement.
Now then. Let’s carefully examine what you say:
“your opinion of what natural differences between the two sexes that you claim all of the
‘transgender movement’ ascribe to by default is also false”
Here is my observation:
The idea the gender is real is an assertion there are natural differences in women and men and in patriarchy those constructed difference are the very core of patriarchy itself.
Here is where you exhibited exactly what I said:
“I believe gender as a construct is false”
If gender isn’t constructed and isn’t a construct than it must be object reality,
which is antifeminist. Indeed where you said, ““I believe gender as a construct is false”, this is the exact object reality I was referring to and it’s as patriarchal as they come.
“Again, you have every right say who you yourself are. You have no right to speak for any woman but yourself, no right to decide who gets to be part of a group. It’s not a club; There should be no heirarchies.”
Of course not. Queer theorists ALWAYS over look the oppression of women. That’s the group. It’s a history of oppression plus other gendered constituents. Men don’t have that history.
“Concluding, I must respectfully disagree with your opinions.”
You’d like for them to be opinions wouldn’t you? However, you and Marti have validated and substantiated everything my analysis has observed.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:50 am
“Reject your sexist blinders, and realize that there are a panopoly of genders out there. Not all transfolk are mtf. Not all transfolk are ftm. ”
There are two gendered classes. “woman” and “man”. There are ZERO genders out there.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:53 am
from my experience as a trans person who has conversed to some degree with a number of radical feminists, trans ideology is what some radical feminists determine it to be in an effort to discriminate against and condemn trans people.
no one asks what ideology trans people hold true for themselves, and if they do, their answered are ignored in favor of the radical feminist view of what they believe “trans ideology” is.
“trans ideology” is a weapon used against trans people. used to erase our experiences. used to erase our individuality. used to erase our diversity. used to erase us all together. it would seem that some radical feminists have learned the tools of their oppressors quite well. construction of an object, in this case “trans ideology”, and the use of that object to objectify, demonize, and discriminate against those they fear, hate, and misunderstand.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Your experience is livng the very great majority of your life as a man?
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Your concern is also with the ‘transgendered ideology’
appropriating women’s concerns.
As half of that ideology, female-to-self described people
don’t count, but male-to-self described people do?
Odd, that.
Yes, you did type ‘or.’ You’re ‘or’ statement seems to rest
totally on all men viewing women as objects, which I’ve
already typed is not my experience.
So being percieved as a woman by society isn’t being socially
constructed as a woman by society? Silly me.
Funny you should mention this. No, I don’t agree. You’re again
missing roughly half of the ‘transgendered’ population. Including
myself. I was born an infant, raised as female, and am currently
in a sort of limbo heading toward what people percieve as male.
Quit erasing me.
If there is an exception, it is not universal.
No. That’s not what I mean. However it’s about four in the bloody
morning so I’m saving this one for tomorrow because at the moment
it’s too complicated to explain.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Tsk. You cut off my statement. Not nice, not fair, and certainly
detrimental to any serious discussion that I thought for a smidge
of a moment you might actually have wanted to have. Silly me,
thinking someone was honest. Here’s the rest of it;
I’m sure some of the ‘transgender movement’ would be pleased to see that
you also identify them as men, as that is how they self identify themselves.
However, you continue to cut out female-to-self identity in the perspectives
of what consitute the ‘transgender movement.’ One can not pretend
that roughly half the transgender population doesn’t exist when formulating
“Transgender Ideology” as you did with your statement above.
I’m afraid I exibited exactly what you said because it is now four
in the morning, and I’ve been over-tired for the past week. I
call it a ‘mistake.’ It’s what happens when I post when I’m constantly
tired. It should have read;
“I believe gender as a construct is true.”
No, they just don’t shove everyone else overboard off the tiny little
raft and into the sea. I rather like not being shoved into the sea, myself.
For me to have substantiated your analysis, I’d have to be included
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.in it in the first place. I’m not, as you so roundly declared that you’re
uninterested in ‘male’ issues.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Minerva writes:
Of course you don’t accept the testimony of “trans”. Men who wish to oppress women don’t accept the testimony of women, whites who wish to oppress people of color don’t accept the testimony of people of color, and hets who wish to oppress queers don’t accept the testimony of queers.
It’s the quintessential first step in “othering” people — deny them a voice and substitute your own voice for theirs. There aren’t a lot of tools in patriarchy’s little toolbox and you seemed to have picked the most commonly used to weild for yourself.
Explain me this — if women are socially constructed, what is the basis of their being socially constructed? Is it not that they are seen as “women” or “female”? Correct? Yes? Baby is born, doctor checks out the crotch, declares “It’s a girl!”, girl is taken home and raised on a steady diet of Barbie and “Math is Hard!”. Woman walks into a job on the first day, boss and co-workers perceives the person to be a “woman” or a “female” and runs the How Women Are Treated In The Workplace Script. Yes? That’s the process, is it not?
What, then, is the magical difference between the social construction of a “simulacra” of a woman and a “Minerva Approved” woman? Does their social construction as members of a gendered class at any instant — trans woman walks into a job on the first day … — depend on their perceived sex or gendered class, or what was marked on their birth certificate? Is Patriarchy all-knowing that it knows “This person is a mere simulacra of a woman, therefore we will treat her as a man, this other person is a Minerva Approved woman, therefore we will treat her as a woman.”
What your doing isn’t Radical Feminism. It kinda smells like Radical Feminism, but it’s not. It’s foregoneconclusionism. It’s “Trans People Suck”-ism.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:46 am
What about my veiws are essentialist? I’ve said I believe gender is a social construct, so unless you’re attributing words that I did not, in fact, type, I’d like to know what, exactly, you’re seeing in my writing. But then you go on to say you won’t engage my post. That’s sort of like going “Neener neener neener,”
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.isn’t it.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:54 am
….Yea, ya lost me, Bean. Of thousands of years of history, apparently noticing that all humans aren’t attracted to all other humans is essentialist. I suppose noticing that people have different genitals is essentialist, too? And let’s not even get on language construction! Hell, all those languagestructures that are based on supposed opposites? Naw, they don’t exist. Spanish, Italian, French, no such thing…
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Social construction begins in infancy.
My position is not that transpeople suck. My position is that your ideology and account of yourselves is defective. You are defining yourselves through something that doesn’t exist in nature but is a creation of patriarchy. That’s your point of self definition. It’s defintion. It’s a mythology and nothing more. You can’t Trans gender or be trangendered if there is no such thing as gender.
Trans ideology, EXPLODES the mythology of gender as a noun. It doesn’t exist anywhere except in our heads like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. What I’m saying is that this entire idea of gender is ludicrous which is why there is no such being as a transperson. It’s a faulty, falacious account, and understanding and explanation of one’s condition.
Nexy commented on asking about experiences. This is a poltical discussion and not an experiential one. Feminism is interested in the experiences of women not trans. It seems like a major reversal that nexy may think feminists should be interested in nexy’s experience given that the trans ideological account of extistence as annunciated here by trans advocates, is a reinforcement of the power structures oppressing women. That the account oppresses women, is something that must be must be denied and made inadmissable by trans ideology and there is an attempt here to look at each other and deny there is one while at the same time, that very idealogy is permeating this very discussion.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:58 am
What I was trying to say is that people are attracted to opposites. Structure. Barriers. We have them for everything, not just gender. Wishing humanity would ignore what they identify with is a vain hope. People as a general rule will not give up the language that they consider defines them. And if they are forced to give it up, people will just create other barriers/structures/opposites. It’s really not that hard a concept to grasp.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Suppose a woman just doesn’t like penises? Just doesn’t want to have anyting to do with them?
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:59 am
“According to you, a woman who falls in love with another woman, but finds out that that woman is actually a non-op trans (read: with a penis), she will no longer be attracted to that person.”
Surely no one really considers such an individual a woman as they have access to male power in this society and besides that aren’t woman in the eyes of our legal system. Somewhere in this trans-think, must be that women are simply people who wears skirts which is dismissive of women’s experiences and ability to self-define.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 5:07 am
Minerva, I’m trying to find a way to reply civilly to this,
but it’s extremely difficult.
This comment was written by little light.Leaving out the expletives, there’s no “surely” about it. Some of us don’t base who we consider woman and men around the legal system’s standards. Many of us don’t base our attractions, or our considerations of other people’s genders, around their crotches.
My partner considers me a woman, and my legal status doesn’t seem to be her concern.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 6:17 am
To use the legal system as a basis for thruth, justice and equality, is proof of the verbal war.
Minerva, if you look at my drivers license you’ll see an F. I’m not sure how a person that society assumes is female and has a non functioning penis has access to male power.
Oh and I guess I’m a bad tranny, I haven’t worn a skirt in at least a year.
Ya know, I think this thread is coming to an end. I know it is for me. I’ve spent the last three days trying to understand, trying to comprehend, and trying to relate to folks that feel as Minerva does. I’ve come to the conclusion that that this isn’t a debate or discussion. This is tantamount each side digging in and regurgitating rhetoric back and forth in preperation for battle.
The truth is that this is a war over words and theories. Meanwhile Grafton Lee Person was beat on the head with a hammer, choked, and placed then had a plastic bag over her head. I need to focus on seeing that put to an end. I’ve got a lot of work to do as a new board member orf the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition.
This comment was written by Marti Abernathey.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 6:40 am
I think a big problem is that if you represent gender as something easily changed - or something that doesn’t really exist - then you have to throw out a good chunk of feminist theory (or the victimhood stance). That’s what worries a lot of feminists, deep down.
If a man (oppressor) goes in and gets a sex change to become a woman, he’s all of a sudden been oppressed for thousands of years.
Chop, snip, injection of a few hormones, and he can get into an engineering college with a lower grade point average (affirmative action).
It’s almost kind of funny - this being so rooted to your gender and almost being on a sports team (go our team - the girls - against the bad team - the boys - whooooo whooo). Changing teams is then a kind of heresy. You’re a traitor to your team.
This comment was written by Vor.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Minerva writes:
Uh, surely a lot of such people are considered to be women. They are treated by everyone they meet, just like other women. They are subject to all the joys and indignations of other women.
Without saying “well, obviously I do and everyone knows it”, how does anyone you meet that you don’t undress in front of know that you’re actually someone who was born with a vagina that you still have? Do they know that about you, or just assume it?
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 6:57 am
The reason these discussions seem to go around and around in circles is because “team thinking” is part of the problem — along with reification (thanks, Plato!) and dualism (thanks, Aristotle!) and a whole bunch of other baggage left behind by centuries of Dead White Males constructing the “way the world is.” I mean, you can’t even talk about “women” as the subject of feminism without buying into the idea that there is such a thing as women, and therefore gender.
Oh, except that we can bring some new ideas to the table — such as the idea that women have a shared set of experiences being oppressed under a patriarchy. Strangely, even with this set of feminist operating assumptions, it seems to be difficult for some to see how they could apply to other people.
Regardless of what kind of essentialist baggage people are carrying around, and I agree with bean that a lot of people are carrying this stuff around, it’s not easy to get rid of no matter who you are, what your gender is… trans people, despite also being an incredibly diverse group, also can be seen as people with certain kinds of experiences being oppressed under a patriarchy. I really wish we could have a conversation (it has been especially nice to read the exchange between bean and little light, thanks you two) about the common ground this creates, rather than trying to stake out definitions and ideologies that erase people’s experiences. Trans people are not simply the result of a sudden political choice, nor do trans people “necessarily” believe certain things or identify certain ways.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 7:41 am
of course you are not interested in the experiences of trans people. if you were, you would learn the truth about trans people, and you’d have no argument.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Oh come now. I never called you a transphobe. I called Minerva a transphobe, and she is.
If someone came in here saying the kind of things she’s said about transfolk about women, that person would be a misogynist, about feminists, an anti-feminist, about black people, a racist, and so on.
The whole oh, I’m being so oppressed when people refuse to accept the vile shit I’m saying about them bit isn’t something you would accept in other situations, so why accept it here?
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Arrogant Worm: I think the problem Bean and other feminists might have, or do have, with your argument is that you are conflating three distinct categories or aspects of being human. You’re mixing up biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender as if all three are interchangeable and equally meaningful. It’s really rather sloppy intellecutal argumentation.
Biologically speaking, and quite out of the control of humans (despite our opposable thumbs), nature is probably always going to break down the majority of humans into, not polar opposites, but compatible pairs that divvy up the, oh I’m sure you remember this, the chromosomes! Pretty nifty biological adaptation that probably isn’t going anywhere.
Now humans, because we have opposable thumbs and these nifty, large brains, have developed civilizations with all their glorious attendant social norms, myths, and social survival strategies. One of which is gender. But because it is a derivation of the human mind and the human tendancy towards civilization, it has no essential root. Gender is a tool, a social tool. Not much unlike race, but that’s a horse too tired to even beat at the moment. Gender, as we understand it right now, in 2007, is a hierarchy of power, of a moral dichotomy between right and wrong. This isn’t new, in fact it’s been entrenched in 2000+ years of religion, myth, literature, and pseudo-science (thanks Freud!).
And none of the above even touches on human sexuality - something I’d rather leave alone academically and just enjoy for all it’s tawdry, every-day physicality.
So, from my perspective, the perspective of a radical feminist who views the primary subjection of women in the patriarchal paradigm as stemming from the misplaced notion that women’s biology fixes her socially as weak, sinful, evil, stupid, etc., etc., transgenderism is, well, nothing. It can’t be anything. Not when you have a rootless, essentially meaningless, paradigm of gender that is imposed from the outside onto the individual based upon birth genitalia. What is that then? How do you transgress a dichotomy if what you’re doing is switch hitting? That doesn’t change the larger game - it just gives a temporary advantage to the home team, the individual. The individual has transgressed gender only in their own mind. Gender itself, that meaningless, rootless social paradigm, keeps on keeping on.
Now then, the common mistake that people are going to make about my words is that I am anti-transsexual or anti-transgenderism, neither of which is true. What I am anti about is, now get this, and probably you might have to read it slowly and twice, even: THE SOCIAL MEANING OF TRANSSEXUALITY AND TRANSGENDERISM. I wholeheartedly believe that it is anything but transgressive.
And because I’m a radical feminist in a stupid, lethargic, spoiled and swelling patriarchy, I am all about transgression. And if I don’t personally believe that your politics are marching next to mine, I have a right to say so without you, general you there, getting all worked up and making it all about your hurt fee fees. Because, you know, if transsexuality and transgendersim were about transgressing our fucked up gender norms, you’d be pissed at teh mens, not the feminists. And, because I’ve looked, and looked, and looked, these past 4-5 years, I don’t see this happening. The trans community, almost to a T, spends it’s energy dissing feminists, crapping on female biology, and trying to out vamp categories of oppression. So, if you want feminists, this feminist, to embrace you, all of you, your choices, your non-chocies, your politics, then wake up to how, so far, you are more like men in a patriarchy, who blame women for all their own weaknesses and failed socializing, then you are like women living under the gender hierarchy of patriarchy.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 9:21 am
If you really think the “trans community” in general is spending most of its political energy fighting with feminists, then you are probably only seeing a tiny section of the trans community that has the time and privilege to hang around online arguing about this sort of thing. There are historical reasons for this pointless and divisive argument that probably need to be examined, but the ultimate point for me is that the effect is that of division. The lives of cisgnedered women and the lives of transgendered people could all be looked at as experiences of people being oppressed by patriarchy, but this isn’t happening because of these border disputes which frankly, are about pretty trivial stuff on either side. But yeah, if you’ve looked and looked on the internet, I’m not surprised at all.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Didn’t say anything about the internet Holly.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 9:33 am
if “switch hitting” is considered to be against the rules, how does that conform to the dichotomy? if gender is considered immutable, and trans people “switch hit”, wouldn’t that strike a blow at the very heart of the gender bible?
interestingly enough, in my own mind, i see myself as the same person i’ve always been, abeit with a slightly modified body. it is in the minds of everyone else that i’ve transgressed gender. everyone else seems to believe that i’m a woman now, where before everyone believed me to be a man. my own belief of who i am hasn’t changed at all.
i would disagree that “the trans community spends it’s energy dissing feminists, crapping on female biology, and trying to out vamp categories of oppression.” i agree that a small number of outspoken trans people might be doing this, but they are no part of any community that i belong to. i don’t believe that engaging in the “more oppressed than thou” discussions serve any purpose, and i work hard to align with feminists toward our common goals - the elimination of gender, as one example.
i object to the propensity of people to define me in the context of one choice i made 10 years ago. my transition is in the past. and whether or not my transition supports or transgresses gender isn’t something i can do much about at this point. i’d argue that all feminists, radical or otherwise, have made just as many choices in their lives that have supported the gender dichotomy as i have. yet they are not defined and compartmentalized as buying into the perpetuation of the gender binary. why are the previous choices of feminists forgiven when mine are not?
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:10 am
A large portion of the population DO define themself by genitals.
What I disagree with is you saying I’m an essentialist for pointing that out,
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.or pointing out that genitalia is a way for a person to define themself, just as it is with any other part and parcel of what they have, what they feel and what they experience. I’m trying to say that the majority of people aren’t going to get rid of something that they think sticks them in a specific social category. You know, kind of kind of like being in a profession. Stonemasons, librarians, mechanics. For some people, those are identities too, not just jobs. It’s that way with a lot of things. People aren’t going to get rid of a verbal definition for a concept/idea/belief just because you want them too. After thousands of years, if they were going to do that, they would’ve done it by now. But yet…they haven’t. Occasionally new categories are introduced, but they’ve yet to drop a system.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:20 am
And out of curiosity, since my posts got butchered anyway, why the fuck would someone who points out what’s actually going on in the world right now be considered an essentialist when they don’t agree with those views themselves, hmmm? Is it because it’s a nifty way ‘Not to engage in my posts’ or to discredit me by saying “Look! Worm thinks the majority of the population will be hard-pressed to give up gender as a category! Worm must agree not giving it up!”
Incidentally, I don’t agree with giving it up. Sure, it would be nice; I’d like to go to the bathroom in peace, I’d like to go out in public without people asking “What the fuck is it” behind my back in supposedly hushed tones that I can hear, or hey, there’s always the people who’re deliberately loud while doing it.
I’d like to change the descriptions of those categories to include freedom from gendered roles, and the ability to be considered one or the other, or again, something else entirely without having to jump through every personal fucking hoop that an individual considers as mandatory to allow me to identify as they do.
But it would also rip away parts of people’s identities, and in the end, they’d just replace them with something else to make a good/bad dichotomy. So no, just because I don’t consider it a feasable plan doesn’t make me an essentialist. You have to actually believe the drivel that’s spewed by society in order to do that, and I don’t.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Of course not. The heart of the gender bible says that gender is real. Switching categories withing the paradigm still leaves the paradigm intact.
I don’t know what feminism your reading or what version of feminist history you’re paying attention to, but a great bulk of feminist theory and action is predicated in pointing out how women themselves do perpetuate the gender dichotomy, etc. Hell, if you read the bulk of Twisty Faster, you’d see that. And that is exactly why feminists aren’t afraid to criticize transsexuality and transgenderism - b/c it’s the same lens that we use on ourselves and our sisters.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Didn’t say anything about the internet Holly.
Either way, it’s bullshit. What do you think the Transgender Law Center, or the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, or the Transgender Resources and Neighborhood Space, or Dimensions, or the Transgender Law and Policy Institute, or FTM International do all day? Do you really think they spend the bulk of their time on michfest? Or talking to radical feminists? Our community’s activism is largely focused on keeping us alive. That involves taking on opponents like public-health services, insurance carriers, governmental bureaucracies, employers, and legislatures. Prison activism. Housing. Anti-discrimination. In a patriarchal world, most of those battles involve attacking sexism as personified by powerful and misogynistic men.
You feel this way because most of your interactions with transpeople have been in a very narrow category, not because it’s true.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Really piny? Because the way I look at it, all those services are working to make sure that transsexuals and transgendered folks are safe and comfortable in the patriarchy, with all the rights associated with the patriarchy. Which they have a right to. Undoubtably. I’m not arguing against *that*. I’m just saying it’s not the same a changing what gender means within the patriarchy.
And I stand by my comment about the routine dissing of biological females that occurs in the transgendered community. I’ve seen it too many times, without debate, without the self censureship of the trans community, to think it isn’t a going trend.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Really piny? Because the way I look at it, all those services are working to make sure that transsexuals and transgendered folks are safe and comfortable in the patriarchy, with all the rights associated with the patriarchy. Which they have a right to. Undoubtably. I’m not arguing against *that*. I’m just saying it’s not the same a changing what gender means within the patriarchy.
Oh, that’s ludicrous. By that same calculus, Planned Parenthood is not feminist. Neither are organizations that help assist women who have suffered rape and sexual assault. The right not to be murdered is not a patriarchal right, and it is not demanded on the basis that transpeople are sufficiently or correctly gendered, but that we are human beings and that, contrary to what the patriarchy believes, our gender identity/history/position does not make us human trash.
And I stand by my comment about the routine dissing of biological females that occurs in the transgendered community. I’ve seen it too many times, without debate, without the self censureship of the trans community, to think it isn’t a going trend.
I’ve had a different experience.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Bear with me, I’m going to switch the two groups in your statement, and I’d like your opinion of why it isn’t offensive when it’s directed at me, and it is when it’s directed at you.
Now, I’m pretty sure you’d find that offensive. I don’t want you to ‘Embrace Me.’ and I don’t blame women for ‘all their own weaknesses and failed socializing.’ I don’t think being socialized as a woman means someone is a failure or lacking in any way, shape or form.
Also, very important;
I don’t EVER need to ‘prove’ myself to you, or agree with your views. I don’t believe in what you say I do, or act like, or live. In fact, that sentiment needs to be typed again!
I don’t EVER need to ‘prove’ myself to you. EVER.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 11:14 am
that assumes that trans people have a choice in what gender they switch to or away from. the gender bible does in fact say that gender is real, but it also says that those people born with a penis are men. i rejected that assertion. i’d argue that “switching” categories is not any worse than accepting the category one was assigned.
i’d argue that any disturbance to any facet of the tenets of the paradigm upsets that paradigm. rome wasn’t built in a day. and during construction, i still need a place to pee.
i welcome examination and criticism. but i have to wonder why, when trans people engage in the same, we are often accused of “[spending] it’s energy dissing feminists”. it seems to me at the same time feminists examine and criticize, trans people are “dissing”, while we are both doing the same thing.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 11:14 am
At this late stage I mean yelling in the wind…
However,
And what I am about to say has been adequately covered by BfP, so I will reiterate:
Trans is not ever about gender, solely. Except when white feminist talk about it and forget that we/they are white.
Trans is about race, size, ability, language, etc. It is largely one of white feminists, yelling, chatting, screaming, about one part that makes us human.
Given that we are all raced, why can’t trans be about race, too?
What happens to this discussion if we discuss trans solely about race?
For me, when I do that, I see that as a man my ascension up the food chain is about my race. FtMs of color do not experience the same ascension as I do, since we are living in a white supremacist society. MtFs of color have a shifting locus where their identities as women remain contested by white people because they are women of color.
In the end we cannot separate gender from race. I just wish more white feminists would start paying as much attention to the color of their skin as they do to my genitals.
This comment was written by Jay.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I just want to pop in and say:
Hear, hear.
This comment was written by Nanette.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I think this is a big part of what Amp was getting at in Argument #5.
Is it transphobic to call out trans prison activism as a counterproductive tool of the patriarchy?
Not at all! Just as long as you’re also calling out women’s shelters as a counterproductive tool of the patriarchy.
It’s when transfolk, and transfolk ALONE, attempting to secure basic human rights are judged as counter-revolutionary that we run into a problem.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 11:23 am
So, in a genderless society as you see it people would ***be attracted to any form of genitalia as long as they’re attracted to the personality.*** Again, that hasn’t been my experience, I haven’t observed that particular belief in the people I’ve dated. So I disagree. Some people don’t like certain attributes/objects. Like greenbeans. My brother hates greenbeans. The color, the taste; all of it. Avoids them like the plague. Why is entertaining the concept that someone might just not be attracted to a certain configuration, No Matter What That Configuration May Be, hard to understand? For some people, it is indeed a defining factor, just like other reasons people give for not being attracted to someone. Ie; hair, state of dress, body shape. All can be changed, to adegree, but that doesn’t mean the people who would’ve found them attractive before would find them attractive after the change.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Right, ArrogantWorm . . . I’d also like to add that by this standard, being lesbian for non-political reasons is counterrevolutionary. But, of course, you never hear that criticism.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I was thinking that as I hit the submit comment button. According to the belief expressed for the ‘Perfect Utopia,’ Lesbians wouldn’t exist, either, as genitals wouldn’t define attraction, and since there’d be no gender categories.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Your argument falls short, AW, because you’re assuming there’s such a thing as a preference or a like/dislike that isn’t socially constructed. All of these things are socially constructed at some level even if they also have a deeper level that’s related to human biology. You can’t escape social construction, and if you say “my brother just simply hates green beans” you’re still being essentialist. There is no such thing as “just hates green beans.” Admittedly it’s not particularly important that you’re being essentialist about green bean preference, but you still are.
Let’s say there’s some biological factor in your brother’s dislike of green beans, like there is genetically for some foods (like cilantro). Some chemical your brother produces or doesn’t produce makes green beans taste really bad on his tongue. Even if this is true (and it might not be) the only thing that’s happened at the biological level is a chemical reaction. It has to be interpreted at a psycho-social level for there to be such a thing as “dislike of green beans.” And at that point, feelings about green beans end up interacting with all sorts of other stuff: social ideas about vegetables and health, what kinds of food are good for you, how your family presented these ideas to your brother, other associations he might have with green beans.
In a far-off future where power inequities have been dissolved, ideas about green beans would probably be rather different. Again, green beans are kind of a weird example, but even ideas about green beans would be different because of all the stuff I mention above: families, ideas about vegetables and health, etc. You can say, well in theory, your brother might still not like green beans in that world, just out of sheer preference. He likes something else better, just as an aesthetic choice of sensory experience, and because there are no power dynamics or oppressive social structures at this point, nothing is influencing him. But that’s pure speculation: your brother exists in this world, and a lot of his feelings about green beans may even be unconscious — so it’s hard to make a comparison between your brother and some far-off inhabitant of a utopia, and how they both feel about green beans. Even if both dislike them, it’s for different reasons, and can’t be compared.
Same thing is true of gender. You can’t say “some people just like penises and that’s the way it is” without being essentialist, because you’re ignoring all the social construction that goes on. You can speculate “well, in a genderless world, some people would still like penises” but there’s absolutely no comparison because the way those people would have arrived at “hmm, I kind of like this kind of configuration that shows up between some people’s legs better” in an environment totally devoid of gendered structures and inequities would be so radically different that we can barely imagine it. Especially for something so laden with meaning and obsessive cultural freaking-out as a penis.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 11:50 am
So what you’re saying, Holly, is that since everything is socially constructed, by making different social choices, we can completely alter the way people react with the world. We can make choices that lead us to a world where everyone is perfectly polysexual, or we can make one where everyone is gay, or where everyone is straight.
Personally, I think that’s profoundly silly. Of course there are social constructions, but those constructions rest on biological foundations.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 11:55 am
but those constructions rest on biological foundations.
Care to elaborate on those precise biological foundations?
This comment was written by Jay.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 11:57 am
I said everything was socially constructed. I didn’t say that there was no biological substrate. A lot of stuff — for instance the cilantro example I pointed out — have both a biological aspect and a social construction. So yeah, I agree. Of course there are social constructions (of pretty much any kind of human behavior, conception, feeling) but those constructions rest on biological foundations, eventually. Human bodies are about as biological as it gets, at least to start off. But none of us, living in this society, can conceive of anything having to do with a human body without the social constructions of that body immediately coming into play and changing everything.
A lot of human existence does have to do with tensions between various kinds of instincts and cultural ideas or mores. Not necessarily always one side vs. the other. But human beings have totally altered the world by saying things like “we might have intense feelings of jealousy when someone else mates with another human that we consider to be our mate, but you ought to control your behavior and not hit either of them, or you’ll be in trouble.” If humans hadn’t started making choices about how to interpret and change that stuff, we would be living in a very different world. And what has driven a lot of those changes and made this world? Power structures, inequities, and culturally sanctioned forms of violence, right from the start. So yeah, we ought to be making conscious choices about whether we want to move towards dismantling those and having other values instead.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Yea, ideas around greenbeans probably would be very different. But his sense of taste would be the same, unless someone found some method of altering his biology so he doesn’t sneak the greenbeans in the trash because he doesn’t like the taste and doesn’t want to eat them. His sense of taste *would be the same* in such a society and he would base eating said beans on that.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
“I’d say she has a right to her feelings. But, I’d also say that it wasn’t a hard-wired feeling, but rather came from living in and being socialized in a patriarchal society and connecting “penis” with “male privilege.”
I’d agree that it’s not hard-wired, however I would think it quite reasonable for any woman to take the position, “That’s the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen” (meaning ALL penises.) Her reason need not be stated, she just thinks penises are ugly.
Furthermore she is wholly within her rights to reject any anatomical male as defined by the presense of a penis who tags along behind one. She is under no oblgation to gender such an individual as woman - at all.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I’m not ignoring the social constructs that society forces people into. I’m trying to say that the social constructs in such a utopia wouldn’t exist as the people who believe in the idea imagine them. You typed that there’s no comparision because the way those people would have arrived at that conclusion of what they like would be radically different than how people arrive at those same conclusions today. But the conclusions themselves don’t change, which is what I’ve been trying to say since last night.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
AW, if your brother does indeed have a chemical problem with green beans, even that sense of taste is not independent of his acquired ideas and subconscious culturally-instilled attitudes about green beans. It’s all part of the same bundle, and to talk about them separately is to play a sort of pretend game, as if “something can exist independently, by itself, and have its own existence.” In fact, this is the very core of what’s called essentialism. Hypothetically you can talk about some future version of your brother who doesn’t have those ideas and attitudes because society is different — but then the “dislike for green beans” is also so different, not having passed through the filter of social construction, that it shouldn’t even be called the same thing. Same with attitudes about genitals. A “penis” is not just a biological thing, it’s also an idea that is coupled inevitably to whatever diverse biological reality there is.
Even if we can sort-of imperfectly imagine a world without gender, the fact that genitals would no longer have the same meaning, and would in theory just be their biological component, means you shouldn’t even call those genitals “a penis” because through the eradication of meaning, they would have become something totally different that wouldn’t matter any more like it does now. Ignoring the fact that at least half, probably most of the “reality” of something like a penis is ideological, and claiming that the biology left behind is “the real thing” — that’s also a very strong form of biological essentialism.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
I’d also say it’s not exactly the same conclusion if the process of arriving at it is different, especially because the conclusion is “feelings about things.” I don’t think it’s that hard to understand how the process might be just as important as the destination, especially when it comes to feelings. To simply focus on the conclusions and effects is ignoring a whole lot of what’s important.
That’s kind of like saying, well one person doesn’t like green beans because they taste bad, someone else doesn’t like green beans because he thinks green beans are part of a conspiracy of women to kill him with vegetables. Is the conclusion really the same? No, and neither is your brother’s dislike of green beans and some utopian future dweller’s dislike. Neither is any member of present society’s feelings about penises, and some theoretical future utopian feelings. They can’t really be compared in a way that you can say “well I’d feel the same way even if I hadn’t been socialized!”
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Well, Jay. You can bash white feminists if you wish, but I think talking about gender, as gender, and the transgression of gender, as a transgression of gender, is a valid political topic.
All you lilly white transsexuals were quite complacent in your lack of discourse about race until it became vogue to blame all the ills of feminism on the whiteness of some women’s skin. It’s not a monopoly, it’s a political movement, and if you don’t like the results, change your tactics. I do what I know, I say what I feel - if you like what I say cool, if you don’t, just dismiss it. But don’t be so freakin’ lazy as to blame my opinions, my thought out, followed through opinions, on your perception of my skin color.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I tried talking about them together; I got a reply about how I was ‘conflating issues’ and a series of definitions on the difference between human biology, gender role, gender identity, et cetera, which I’m very much aware of as I’m living it. Pick one or the other, for the love of god, because I can’t conflate an argument by mixing definitions and seperate them from each other at the same time.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but food issues pass through social construction every day. There’s several excellent posts floating around the blogsphere on just that topic. What to eat, what not to eat, what’s bad/good for you, what’s sanctioned by a religion as proper edibles, what’s considered ‘unclean’ by various cultures that may or may not have anything to do with religion.
It’s not just a biological thing, no. But it *is* biological. As such, it will be compared to other biological realities, wether one gets rid of social constructs of gender or not. And people name those ‘biological realities.’ Which is why I don’t believe getting rid of the social institution of gender is feasable, just changing what those views are and including as much as possible.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Well, no you don’t… up until that point at which you project yourself outward as a political entity and try to socially critique feminism and feminist thought. At which point you do, indeed, need to prove what you are promoting.
What the fuck is this? Politics lite ™?
I’m sitting here will to lay my entire reputation on the line; willing to walk the bigot gambit; willing to say the uncomfortable things; the ugly things; the things that make me look most, most unpopular - not because I want people to like me, to understand me, to see me as an individual. Fuck that noise. That’s what high school and bars are for.
I bring my opinion to the table because I think it matters - I think it matters enough for people to hate me. To call me a hater, or merely ignorant.
Do I think I’m right? Hell, I don’t know. But I do know that when say, Piny and I go at it, I learn something. And even if I’m wrong, it’s worth it. It’s worth it to challenge any paradigm, to challenge anything that masks itself as politics but is really a stand-in for sophmoric, moralistic right vs. wrong, good vs. evil.
And so AW, what exactly is it that you bring to the table when you say you have nothing to prove? Wouldn’t it be easier for you to simply not bother?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I think Holly’s claiming something more nuanced, Robert–that what preferences we have are partially based in biology (say, chemical reaction to the taste of greenbeans) and partially in social construction around that biology (learning to like greenbeans because they’re healthful.) Similarly, I’d argue, and I think from that last so would she, that in our Theoretical Utopia–or any very different world–there would be people attracted to “men” and to “women” and to “people with penises” and to “people with vulva” and so on, but they would experience those attractions differently, and for different reasons.
This comment was written by little light.There are plenty of people for whom my history or anatomy is simply a turn-off; and that’s their deal, and I respect that, because attraction is attraction. And some of those people have basic, ingrained preferential reasons for it, and would probably keep those in a world with different cultural constructs around gender. Some of them have past experiences that make it so; God only knows how that would change. Some people have a culturally-indoctrinated revulsion regarding trans bodies; I’d like to think that would go away.
If someone says to me, well, I don’t find your particular anatomy desirable, I don’t waste time arguing, anyway. If someone says, ‘Well, you’re not a woman, and surely nobody considers you to be one,’ well, that’s simply counterfactual. Some people have a preference, strictly, for some genital constructions, and in most cases, that’s not going to change, but I would hazard that many more people have preferences for specific gender constructions, and those will shift significantly, culture-to-culture and over time.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
The process is indeed important to the destination. Very much so, as it helps bring about the conclusion. But I’m not going to ignore the conclusion that some people will inevitably have when they decide not to eat the beans or associate with a penis.
But the effects of those conclusions are the same. Either way, he won’t be eating greenbeans, and people will choose wether or not they find penises sexually acceptable to them.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Q Grrl,
All you lilly white transsexuals were quite complacent in your lack of discourse about race until it became vogue to blame all the ills of feminism on the whiteness of some women’s skin. It’s not a monopoly, it’s a political movement, and if you don’t like the results, change your tactics. I do what I know, I say what I feel - if you like what I say cool, if you don’t, just dismiss it. But don’t be so freakin’ lazy as to blame my opinions, my thought out, followed through opinions, on your perception of my skin color.
Appreciate the thoughtful, considered response.
Since you know nothing of my life you cannot comment on my commitment to anti-racism. Try as you might, you will only fail.
We will not agree. You wish to see only gender. You wish only to talk about gender as gender.
I said gender can, only partially, be discussed without referencing other things like race, or ability. I don’t think, nor did I say, that I blame all the ills of feminism on the whiteness of some woman’s skin. You did.
Unitary responses to complicated, messy human beings don’t work for me. Continuing to discuss trans solely in terms of gender will fail both socially and politically, I think, because the discussion lacks so much nuance.
But you may very well be right. Opinions are some of our most dearly held beloved prejudices. The opposite of one sacred cow is often another one.
This comment was written by Jay.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Fair enough Jay.
But this:
is most precisely right. At least for this argument. And I fail to see any problem with that.
Especially when one political group wants to make up nebulously meaningful terms like “cisgendered” and shove those down the throats of all the eager folk that don’t want to be seen as un-PC or as bigoted.
When a political group makes up a term which renders discussion of the position of women, as women, a position rendered only possible through the use of gender, null and void, then hell fuckin’ yeah - I’m gonna talk about gender.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Holly writes:
Were that the reasons were that simple.
My experience is that neither side wishes to concede anything to the other that it perceives will weaken its stance.
If a man can do “something” and forever after be classed amongst “Women, as a class”, it means that not only is gender a social construct (something that Radical Feminists pegged decades ago), but that it is not something that is UNIQUELY attached to any part of female anything (something else that Radical Feminists pegged decades ago). And that, I think, is absolutely frightening to the little-r radical feminists who pretend to be Radical Feminists on the Internet.
Radical Feminism does not, for example, claim that the most privileged, least oppressed woman on the planet is more oppressed and less privileged than the least privileged, most oppressed man on the planet. That’s not a claim of Radical Feminism, which is a good thing because it’s an absurd statement. Rather, Radical Feminism is aware that there are multiple forms of oppression and that “gender” is the universal form of oppression — that because all societies have both “men” and “women”, all societies have sex-based classing — “Gender” — as part of their makeup, and that in all of those societies “Woman, as a class” is the socially constructed inferior to “Man, as a class”.
Yet we wind up with the faux radical feminists treating, in this instance, “trans people” as a monolithic entity having the same socially constructed characteristics as the females and males from which the female-born “trans MEN” and male-born “trans WOMEN” originate. One would have to explain what role social perception of sex has to do with gendered classes to deny “trans men” are classed with other men and “trans women” are classed with other women. If it isn’t socially perceived sex, what is the mechanism by which someone knows that Robert or Amp are members of “Men, as a class” and Nexy and Minerva are members of “Women, as a class”.
What’s the mechanism by which Radical Feminism claims that people are classed? Are rapists asking to see birth certificates before choosing their victims? Do bosses examine chromosomes when handing out raises? Or is gendering based on socially perceived sex? That would be a question I’d like to see answered by the current radical feminist contingent.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I don’t have to prove to her that my choices, my non-choices, and my politics harm her or hers by having her agree with me. I don’t have to approve of someone to ‘embrace’ them as human beings and worthy of the same rights all people are entitled too.
Case in point.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
When a political group makes up a term which renders discussion of the position of women, as women, a position rendered only possible through the use of gender, null and void, then hell fuckin’ yeah - I’m gonna talk about gender.
I was not involved in this discussion in any way.
This comment was written by Jay.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Sorry Jay, I had assumed you read the thread.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
So, you want the position on women, as women, a position rendered only possible through gender to *Stay*? I’m trying to be clear.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
No, arrogantW. Shit, I was assuming you read the thread too.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I did read the thread. I’m betting I mistook your meaning, then. Which is a wonderful thing in this case, as I don’t understand how one would want another to be subordinate in any way, shape or form.
So the political group your talking about subscribes to the “Transgender Ideology” concept that was so popular upthread? Not all ‘transgendered’
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.people have the same politics, beliefs and/or ideologies. Not even most of the people who could be considered or considers themself transgendered are in a ‘political’ movement. Ascribing a whole set of beliefs to a group that is inadequately represented, as few people go into politics, at best, is holding one person up as a definitive example of a whole segment of the ‘transgendered’ population.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
“All you lily-white transsexuals,” huh, Q Grrl?
I’m not white.
Holly’s not white, either.
And giving a damn about race issues and intersectionality isn’t just some sinister scheme to score points against your politics–it’s my goddamn life. So, while I’m happy to politely discuss the rest of what you’ve brought up, on that point? Back. The hell. Off.
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
ok, now i’m really confused. do you mean this thread? or was there some thread in which trans people, who as a political group, made up the term “cisgender”? because if the latter is true, i wasn’t involved in that discussion either, and i assert that the trans people who made up the term do not represent me, or any trans people i know. and further, i’d argue that they are trans rebels, who act on their own accord, and should be seen as such.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Assuming, of course, that the person being held up as the example has views that fit the ‘Transgender Ideology.’ in any way, shape or form. There’s probably a few, as I think there’s probably at least one example of anything possible no matter what the situation.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I think the discussion on this thread was really excellent for a while, but that it’s moved downhill more recently. Would anyone find it a horrible thing if I closed the thread to further comments?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I think the discussion on this thread was really excellent for a while, but that it’s moved downhill more recently. Would anyone find it a horrible thing if I closed the thread to further comments?
Yes. But it’s your blog.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Little light, I was only referencing those transsexuals et al who are truly lilly white.
And yes, discussion or race are always good, except when their absence is used to bash a poster or her comments.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I think that there are some worthwhile threads of discussion in here, but it’s all hopelessly snarled. I wish some of it could be continued elsewhere, but I don’t have a blog.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Thanks for saying that. :-) But one of the things I can do, since it’s my blog, is take your opinion into account. So I’ll leave the thread open to new comments for now. :-)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
If it’s the cisgendered label, then I’d like to weigh in that if there was a conference, they sure as hell didn’t invite me. Although as a label, I don’t see any complications as it describes the experience of being ‘normally gendered’ in a socially constructed gender category. Although the categories suck.
I see it as a word describing how people who are routinely interacted as socially gendered ‘normal.’ by not ‘displaying’ ‘cross-gendered’ characteristics may not have identical experiences with those of ‘transgender’ by society.
Unless there’s another definition of ‘cisgender’ that I’m not aware of. Is there?
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Amp,
You’re free to close this thread because, as Piny put it, it’s your blog.
What would be nice is a thread in which the derailing comments that are so common to these trainwrecks were forbidden, much as you ban MRAs and antifeminists from threads where their presence is going to generate more heat than light.
As I wrote much earlier, the pattern of these threads is fairly simple –
Someone who dislikes transsexuals, transgenders, trans people, trans whatever makes an assertion about such people and uses it to attack them.
People who might be the target of that attack then rebut the assertions or stereotypes using examples from their own lives.
The person who dislikes or whatever trans whatevers then makes more outrageous assertions, none of which are supported.
Yes, there are people who are clueless on the trans side as well. One fairly well known poster once asserted that her “womanhood” was somehow related to her love of satin blankets, her participation in beauty paegents, and her dislike of full-contact sports. I think that a meaningful discussion about “trans” and it’s impacts on women, feminism, feminist politics, etc. is only possible if both of the two extremes are forbidden from participating. Neither of those two extremes — the “you were raised a man, so I know exactly what your life was like and I’m here to tell you all about it” and “I identify as a girlie for all these girlie reasons and that makes me as much a girlie as you” sides — will ever contribute to a meaningful feminist dialog on the subject.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Considering that people’s interpretations of my views are most likely a part of why it ‘went downhill’ I can just watch if you like? I don’t mind.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
One fairly well known poster once asserted that her “womanhood” was somehow related to her love of satin blankets, her participation in beauty paegents, and her dislike of full-contact sports.
Has she been here? I’m sorry I missed it.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
And who doesn’t love satin blankets?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
You know, I’m not honestly sure that I’ve ever tried a satin blanket.
I’d be worried about doing this myself; my intuition is that the result arguments about which bans are legitimate and which bans are not would be epic. So the result of trying to generate more light and less heat might be more heat than ever.
As for this thread, right now I have a nasty flu; I’m spending 12 hours a day in bed and the rest of the time barely able to think coherently. So I can’t really consider being a very engaged moderator of this thread, right now. (Not that there was any way for you to know that!) :-)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Why do we call it “derailing”? In RPGs, being “on rails” is a bad thing. (”Piss off, Casey Jones”, as the magnificent DMOTR series puts it.)
Is a conversation supposed to be a fixed trip along inflexible route?
I wonder if this is the best metaphor to be using for talking among people.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Yeah, I don’t think these discussions are past the “preschool” level of establishing dialogue and figuring out where the boundaries are yet. I really wish it was possible for them to graduate so that there could be some near-consensus on “that is a total troll argument” and “oh no not that red herring again” and that sort of thing. But sometimes it seems years away, and meanwhile the same exact stuff gets dragged up and very few new ideas get considered.
Maybe part of the solution is more blogs by trans people who are also feminists (yay, little light!) as these threads always seem to grow enormous, and it somehow doesn’t seem fair to bloggers who are covering all sorts of other important topics. Discussions about the legitimacy of “transgender” or whatever you want to call it, end up being poor guests.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Bean: “LOL! See, I get it from both sides. I’m both a transphobe and entrenched in “trans think”
Well you are entrenched with trans think :) , but let’s talk a moment about “transphobia”. The trans movement has a two new tactics, I see.
In the past , in view that there is no substance to trans ideology, trans activists have only had two tactics. The first is the characterization of “bigot” and the second is the pseudo-bludgeon of “transphobia”. It is against transpolitical correctness (the trans ideology they claim does not exist) to have feelings that are labeled as “transphobic feelings”. What men as a class have done is to illegitimatize women’s feelings as a class as they grant primacy to the authority granted to “objectivity”. The transmovement has fine tuned this with their appropriation of homophobia into “transphobia”.
I say the feelings negated in the label of transphobia are quite valid feelings and no one has any obligation to accommodate trans ideology, the very ideology they defend by denying that it exists. One cannot examine something that does not exist, so all they have to is to deny that it exists.
It is undeniable that the ideology does exist. The blog is permeated with the cognitive distortions of the trans movement.
Bean, if anyone calls you transphobic, here is how I would process it. Their ideologies are susbtanceless and they have few alternatives but to call you transphobic. Which is a move to deny your very valid feelings. If someone calls me transphobic I don’t worry about it a bit. All that means is that they cannot defend their position and I have valid feelings. Somehow, I knew that already. :)
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Okay, Minerva. I’m enough of a masochist to bite. What’s your position? What is it in relation to Amp’s original post and its claims? What do you think my position is, as a trans person audacious enough to call herself a feminist? What parts would you like me to clarify? What parts do you think are indefensible, and would you be willing to read a defense of them?
You’ve spent this entire conversation telling me how I think. How do I think, Minerva? Are you having a conversation, here, or just monologuing?
I await your reply with bated breath.
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Amp,
I don’t know if a thread can generate more heat than most trans threads on feminist boards. I’ve seen pro-pr0n threads that weren’t as nasty as trans threads.
Holly,
“Open” discussion board conversations about “trans” eventually turn into slug-fests between “Trans people suck!” on one side and “I’m a girly because I bought a vagina!” on the other. There will never be a consensus on the subject of “trolling” because the language is completely disconnected. There isn’t even an agreement on the meaning of the word “Gender” and “Gender” is central to the entire conversation.
Another problem, and I have to say this so I can give equal time to my attacks (heh), is that there is no such thing as a “Certified Feminist”. There are people who say “Oh, I’m a feminist”, but their feminism is either it’sallaboutme-ism or foregoneconclusion-ism. I love “feminist” discussions which include Side #1 telling Side #2 what Side #2 experienced. I’d like to have a giant gong I could hit and say “Sorry, that’s not feminism! Thanks for playing! Don’t come back next week!”
One thing that might help is for people to lay out their definitions and maybe number them all. So if I say “Gender” and I mean “socially perceive ones self as a member of a specific group” I can write “Gender #3″, and someone else says “Gender” and they mean “A class system based on sex in which males dominate females”, they can write “Gender #2″ and a third person says “Gender” and they mean “the social customs and behaviors associated with a person based on sexual stereotypes” they can write “Gender #1″. Those are all ways in which “Gender” is used in these discussions. And for different writers, those are the really-real definitions of “Gender” and that’s what they assert as “Gender” –
“I am a woman because I like satin blankies, think math isn’t for women and hate contact sports.”
“I am a woman because society told me math and football weren’t for women, and I experienced loss of self-esteem in school as a result of being told I suck at math and now I’m overweight with diabetes because I was told not to exercise. Gender sucks. Go to hell.”
“I am a woman because I stand in solidarity with other women and find I have more in common with them than with men.”
Having a meaningful and productive discussion on the subject of “gender” and “transgender” requires that Gender #1, Gender #2, Gender #3 can all be discussed without saying “You’re not allowed to use Gender #1 in a discussion!”. Gender #1 can be examined within a feminist framework. “You suck because you use Gender #1 in discussions!” cannot.
Sadly, what we get is “You such because you use Gender #1/2/3 in discussions!”.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
What the fuck is this? Politics lite ™?
No Qgrrl, it’s politics trite and the poltics of green beans. Pay attention, this board of green bean centered.
bean are you green?
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Yeah, I respond the same way when someone calles me a misogynist, racist, or homophobe, Minerva.
There’s no such thing as bigotry or prejudice, because all of our feelings are valid.
Every last one.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Urph. S/B –
Sadly, what we get is “You SUCK because you use Gender #1/2/3 in discussions!”.
Must. Type. Slower.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
No Qgrrl, it’s politics trite and the poltics of green beans. Pay attention, this board of green bean centered.
bean are you green?
Hmm.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
“Okay, Minerva. I’m enough of a masochist to bite. What’s your position? What is it in relation to Amp’s original post and its claims?”
1.) There are many people who call themselves radical feminists who do not understand what radical feminism is. They are actually cultural feminists and are essentialists. As such they are not feminists at all, something which does not seem to phase them at all.
2.) Actual radical feminism is indifferent to transexuality perse as long as someone has been reared consistently with their class and does not add to the oppression of women. Andrea Dworkin has spoken in support of transsexuality and so has Kate Millet. Catharine MacKinnon is indifferent and leaves room early transitioners. In short the sin is not reassignment, poltical heaven or hell is predicated on your poltical alignments.
An observation, Qgrrl is a good example of a radical feminist (most of the time.)
That’s the good news.
Here’s the bad news. I agree with what Qgrrl has said. It is clear to me that transgender philosophy is garbage, indefensable, vacuaous and is pernicious and damaging to women for reasons that I have discussed. Kids who manifest a cross classed identity early as children are valid and legitimate. Grown men going through sex reassignment are grown men and always will be. Transgender ideology is the most naïve, unexamined ideology I have ever and it is tragic that it has propagated the way it has.
“What do you think my position is, as a trans person audacious enough to call herself a feminist? “
I believe any person who calls themself a transperson is seriously impaired and I’m serious about that. To do so means that they haven’t examined very much and really should not be heeded until they learn better. In other words, I’ve already spoken about the identity itself. The identity and assocated beliefs are the toxins, NOT the person. They may sound inncocent enough because of the naivette of indivualism but it is also pervasivve and damamaging to women.
Anyone who is transcentric is not a feminist and is not a woman and should be thrown out of women’s circles. People who have lived the majority of their lives as women and are woman-centered are women. I know this sounds radical/heretical but I think I can support it.
“What parts do you think are indefensible, and would you be willing to read a defense of them?”
I would defend kids, not adult transistioners. I think almost ALL of trans ideology because it is not feminist informed but is queer/pomo influenced comes from a male standpoint, is not woman-centric and in a feminist, and any hard philosophical examination is unexamined (meaning it is garbage – meaning their understanding of themselves is garbage.)
Actually I think there is a RADICAL paradigm which is quite acceptable and would universally attack the roots of patriarchy that would support the legitimate people that this politic has annexed. You see, patriarchy is not the least bit hampered by identity politics. It’s hard to see and QGrrl has touched upon it but patriarchy is held together by an essential identity politic and this is the mechanism where women work against ourselves. Cultural feminists propagate identity politics and are in alignment with patriarchy in exactly the same way that trans is. Twisty’s board is FULL of many patriarchists and antifeminists who call themselves radical feminists they aren’t.
With this in mind, I am willing to throw a radical manifesta together. It won’t be airtight because it will be thrown together but I promise you this. It will challenge patriarchy at its roots and NO ONE will have an inherent claim to an identity.
This comment was written by Minerva.Interested?
Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Okay:
1) Attempted jokes which are actually word salad.
2) Defense of transkids coupled with venom directed at “adult men.”
2a) Special pleading.
3) Increasingly long posts.
4) “Minerva”
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
So, to begin with, your position is that any position I take, as a person claiming trans identity, is automatically not worth listening to or engaging with, Minerva? And then that you know this because whatever claims you assume I make will be indefensible and that I won’t be able to back them up–automatically, because I am impaired and automatically have an invalid perspective? I just want to get this clear, if this is your grand response to “Please let me know what you think my beliefs are, so I can discuss them with you.”
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Deal with the substance of the argument piny. I do not think you can.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Deal with the substance of the argument piny. I do not think you can.
I’m not introducing an ad hominem; I don’t pretend to engage with your arguments, such as they are. More stamina to little light for doing so.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
“So, to begin with, your position is that any position I take, as a person claiming trans identity, is automatically not worth listening to or engaging with, Minerva? And then that you know this because whatever claims you assume I make will be indefensible and that I won’t be able to back them up–automatically, because I am impaired and automatically have an invalid perspective? I just want to get this clear, if this is your grand response to “Please let me know what you think my beliefs are, so I can discuss them with you.”
This is an accurate recapitulation of my position. You beliefs are impaired because you define yourself by believeing that gender is real and that it is something to be trans’ed. As long as you are a person who holds those beliefs you are unexamined meaning you have internalized a set of patriarchal cognitive distortions manufactured by the trans movement. As such, we don’t have anything to talk about.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Oh, and (5), “The fact that you are a transsexual makes you incapable by definition of making an argument of any kind.”
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
You do not think he can, Minerva, because your argument is that any argument that comes from me or piny is automatically wrong. Your argument is that anything I say is automatically vacuous, naive, and antifeminist. If I say I don’t buy into the stuff you say transsexuals believe–which you still haven’t detailed in any way, just lumped under a vague “transgender ideology”–I’m being dishonest. If I argue for any of it, I’m by default wrong because those are your terms of discussion. If I ever did back you into a rhetorical corner, you already believe I should be “thrown out” of the discussion. Your argument is LA LA LA I’M NOT LISTENING.
This comment was written by little light.Do I misunderstand? Q Grrl, since you think she’s worth listening to, is at least making assertions. Would you consider rising to her level?
Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
“Actual radical feminism is indifferent to transexuality perse as long as someone has been reared consistently with their class and does not add to the oppression of women. ”
The toxin is in the identity and the ideology- not the act, piny. Don’t try to distort what I am daying.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
“You do not think he can, Minerva, because your argument is that any argument that comes from me or piny is automatically wrong. Your argument is that anything I say is automatically vacuous, naive, and antifeminist. If I say I don’t buy into the stuff you say transsexuals believe–which you still haven’t detailed in any way, just lumped under a vague “transgender ideology”–I’m being dishonest.”
No. Everyone who goes through reassignment does not automatically believe this garbage. It’s this belief system and set of justifications which radical feminists oppose.
I am opposing this ideology and the non-sensicalness of this identity which IS political. I’ve already said WHY it’s non-sensical and no one has responded to that why tells me that they cannot.
Immediately this is shoved into and argument based on defense of identity and that’s about it. I’m not trying to “win” here. I am defintiely confronting a set of cognitive beliefs which you have internalized.
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
“In short the sin is not reassignment, poltical heaven or hell is predicated on your poltical alignments.”
This comment was written by Minerva.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Minerva, I’ve decided that you’re adding more heat than light to this discussion. So, with my apologies, I’m
not going to let your posts through for the next few days at leastnot going to be letting any of your posts through.(Once I’m done being sick, I might reconsider my decision at that point.)
[Edited to add: Cross-posted with Maia, but I fully approve of what she posted. --Amp]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I gave a reason when I attempted to deconstruct that long post when I first entered the discussion on why the word ‘ideology’ can not be used for ‘Transgender Ideology’ as a political term. You never responded when I pointed out that a system is made up of more than one person, which you specifically said was the definition you were using. How can one argue an ideology if the concept that is espoused doesn’t fit the definition of ideology?
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
…Question withdrawn, I s’pose. Sorry.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Wait a minute — I recognize the use of “kids are okay, late transitioners (’husbands and fathers’) are not”, the growing post lengths, increasing occurance of misspelt words, dismissing feminists who aren’t radical feminists and mentioning MacKinnon.
Anyone else pick up on that?
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
I recognize the strategies, yeah. It sounds very much like a few posters who are regulars on other boards, but I don’t recognize her screen name. The benefit of the doubt and all that, she’ll be ‘Minerva’ unless she states otherwise. But it’s hard to discuss things when people don’t respond to posts but start on a new tangant. Like, did anyone besides Minerva mention transkids, MacKinnon, husbands and fathers, ect cetera and so forth, because I don’t remember anyone else bringing those particulars up. I’m ignoring the misspelt words because I’m assuming if she’s passionate about a subject she’ll type fast, and her vision might not be the best. I have trouble with the vision thing myself.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
AW,
It’s all a pattern.
If it’s who I think it is, this entire thread has been a giant dominance game by her in which she attempts to prove that not only is she the most “Radical Feminist(TM)” of all radical feminists, but also the least transsexual of all transsexuals.
The only other “Radical Feminists(TM)” who play that same “I can’t HEAR Yooouuuuuu!” game are a few genuinely transphobic radical feminist wannabees who’s sole purpose in these threads is to attack trans people. What they do is neither feminist nor feminism.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I don’t understand how transkids can be okay when older trans people aren’t. Surely some older transitioners felt trans as children, but reacted to socialization in such a way that they didn’t transition. So, then, what? There’s like an expiration date on when you can act on desire? After that, you’re seriously impaired?
Feh.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
everyone is talking about philosophy, but i want to talk about the science for a second. some very well-reasoned arguments are being based off of premises that aren’t supported by modern science (ie, “gender is a social construct”), and i think that starting from the same point is important when talking about gender and transexuality.
first, we have complete control of gender in a lab (yes, gender, not sex or sexuality) — we can create a male sex with a female gender and a female sex into a male gender, or we can make something in between. of course, we haven’t done this with human beings, but we have with other animals (sorry animal rights!). there’s a short “critical period” in the development of a fetus that determines its gender for its entire life. for humans, this happens during pregnancy shortly after the gonadal tissue (ovary or testes tissue) develops. for other mammals, like rats, it happens shortly after birth as a neonate, since rats are born less developed than humans. if everything goes according to plan, if it’s a XY male, little testes will produce androgen (testosterone, etc) that cause a chain reaction in the body.
there’s a somewhat common saying that nature tries to make all babies into women, and it’s only testosterone that creates men. that’s mostly true. every baby would be born with a vagina and uterus without androgens affecting the developmental process. every baby would also be born with a female gender. if we take an XX (female) baby rat and inject it with testosterone equivalent to what an XY (male) baby rat would have under normal conditions, we create a female-to-male transexual for life, even though the rat still has ovaries, a vagina, and a normal female amount of estrogen and testosterone flowing through its body. the rat has all of the behavioral characteristics of a male rat, and will even “mount” and try to “thrust” female rats, even though it doesn’t have a penis. the male behaviors are so strong that female rats will present for the transexual rat thinking that it is a “normal” male rat. the opposite is true for XY male rats that are not allowed to develop testes tissue. they become female rats with penises and testes.
since nobody would want to do these lab experiments on human fetuses, it hasn’t been well studied why specific humans become transexuals, for many reasons: the difficulty finding humans to test, the problem of funding transexual research, and because there are so many possible theories to test. are there environmental factors, such as hormones in cow’s milk or other foods that pregnant women ingest? do some fetuses not completely develop their gonads until the “critical” period has passed and gender is already set? is there some kind of specific biological condition that hinders “normal” gender development, similar to known conditions that alter physical sex development, such as androgen insensitivity, which causes XY males to not react to androgen and develop completely into women? (you might be a genetic male and not even know it.) maybe a combination of all of these?
every one of these theories would follow the facts. there are many more MtF transexuals than FtM transexuals, probably because it’s easier to biologically make a MtF transexual. you just need to not have the required androgen affect the fetus during a short fetal period (probably around two days long). to create a FtM transexual, you need to introduce something “foreign” — androgen — into the fetal bloodstream. it might not necessarily be completely foreign, and might come from the pregnant mother’s body.
there is also a wide “range” of gender. some transexuals can’t tolerate being stuck in the wrong sex so that they do everything they can to have surgery and/or live as the other sex as soon as they can in their teen years or even earlier. these transexuals are almost always heterosexual, in that they like men if they are MtF. other transexuals live as feminine or masculine versions their birth sex later in life until it becomes unbearable, and the vast majority probably die without “switching.” the later a transexual transitions the more likely they will be homosexual. the biological gender development is probably not “complete” in many (because there are opposing forces in the fetus) and they have conflicting female and male gender identity. there are also probably different but related forcing causing sexual identity and sexual orientation. no matter what, transexuals always show “abnormal” gender-atypical behavior as small children, whether it be a boy playing dress up in his mother’s clothes (which would not be strange for a little girl to do) or a girl to play cowboys with fake guns (which would not be strange for a little boy to do). little transexual children almost always play with the opposite sex mostly at least until later in grade school, when it becomes socially unacceptable.
if you look at “normal” infants who are forced to be raised as the opposite gender, it never turns out well. there are famous cases of americans who have genital accidents and they cannot live as the sex they were raised. for example, the book “as nature made him” is about a boy whose penis is destroyed during a botched circumcision and he is raised as a girl with hormones and female gender roles, but he becomes a FtM transexual even before he knows he was born as a boy. this is not at all unique — whenever this happens, the result is almost always the same. there are cases of isolated communities where a genetic condition causes some XX girls to have a “penis” at birth and are raised as boys until puberty, when female sexual characteristics start to form. this is easy to “correct” so that they can remain as boys, but they always choose to become girls (i think there was only one exception to this ever recorded). this happens in cultures where females have no power or status in society, which makes it more compelling.
most people don’t think that something so intangible as gender could be biological, but it is so. even infants can tell the difference between men and women’s faces (there have been clever experiments measuring eye gaze length and such). gender is the one personality trait that helps us pass our genes along, so i don’t think it’s that surprising that it is hard-wired into our brains.
there is the socially constructed form of gender, too, but that is in gender roles, not gender itself. every culture on earth has specific different gender roles for women and men. girls in dresses and boys with guns aren’t inborn in our brain, but the gender that we tend to emulate is. i see gender as a drive, just like how hungry you are, who you want to have sex with, or how much power you crave. if someone has a feminine drive, they will have an urge to follow female gender roles, an urge to take female role models, and an urge for sex-specific behaviors, for example squatting to pee or taking “female” sex positions. just like if someone is hungry, they will have an urge to eat unless food is unavailable or there are huge social pressures, like the ones lots of teenage girls face. it’s only because of similar enormous social pressures and taboo that cause most transexuals to “stay in the closet” and surpress these drives for most of their lives. just look at the reactions of most americans (male and female) if a man orders a salad at a steakhouse, or a woman belches in public.
sorry if i seem a little condescending, but i really think it’s important to share why i am certain gender is not a social construct, gender identity is inborn, and transexuals have no more say in their gender identity than the color of their skin. even if everyone understood this, there would still be issues — many transexuals have difficulty completely passing, for example. transexuals may not share certain childhood experiences, but their gender identity is as real as any born-female woman’s.
This comment was written by jamier.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Mandolin,
The belief that transkids are “okay” and non-transkid-trans-people are “not okay” comes from, in large part, The Person Suspected of Being Minerva. It was further fueled by a paper written by one Dr. Anne Lawrence and a book by Dr. J. Michael Bailey.
The theory is that “real” transsexual women (and one intersex and transkid activist said that there are no real transsexual men, only women infected with the “trans virus” …) are always hyperfeminine children who transition prior to puberty. Furthermore, everyone else is suffering from a sex-fueled mental illness called “autogynephilia”. The theory goes on to claim that these young hyperfeminine boys have no future socially as adult men because they will be unable to get a boyfriend (most of these boys are androphilic — sexually attracted to men) on account of gay men don’t place high value on hyperfeminine partners.
Many other things come along for the ride with the “transkid” theory, including the assertion that all transsexual women who aren’t transkids intentionally lie about their life experiences because they are ashamed to admit that they suffer from this sex-fueled mental illness.
You can read more about Transkids at the transkids’ official website. You can read more about the controversy surrounding Drs. Lawrence, Blanchard and Bailey at this website which acts as a clearinghouse for arguments against the theory.
My personal opinion is that the transkid theory is a case of special pleadings as well as proof by repeated assertion. At the most basic level is the unsupported assertion that changing sex after puberty is never socially advantageous, which is the main supporting claim for the validity of transkids. Other flaws include the unsupported assertion that non-transkid-trans-people are pathological liars who are too ashamed to admit to their sexual perversion and cover their lies with fabricated histories of childhood femininity, desire to change sex, or any number of other parts of what they derisively call “The Standard Transsexual Narrative”.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Fun.
I did know the term “autogynophile.” (I believe the main character in Samuel Delany’s _Trouble on Triton_ is supposed to be an autogynophile.) I didn’t know it was supposedly correlated to time of transition.
Thank you very much for the links and the explanation.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Hi Jamier,
I’m not categorically opposed to the idea that gender identity may be inborn. A couple quibbles, though:
” transexuals always show “abnormal” gender-atypical behavior as small children”
All transsexuals? I feel like I’ve read stuff by people who claim not to have.
Or at least not to have any more than children who eventually identify with birth gender. I would assume every child has exhibited behavior not identified with their assumed gender.
I also don’t think you’re correct that “most people don’t think that something so intangible as gender could be biological, but it is so.” There are many books dedicated to this theory. I think it is most people’s default assumption.
Before this discussion, my sense was that the construction of gender as biological when associated with transgenderism — effectively the argument you’ve presented here — is the basic theoretical divide between one school of feminism and what is commonly (if mistakenly) considered to be “trans ideology” or whatever someone upthread said.
I apologize if I am misreading you. However, to me, the logical consequences of the argument that people “innately” identify with one gender and “innately,” therefore, want to emulate the sex roles of the people who also identify at one pole in the binary, goes something like this:
1) You are innately born with a gender identity that is male or female.
2) You want to emulate the people who show those traits.
3) Transpeople want to emulate the people whose physical sex is different theirs, because of point 1.
4) Anyone who doesn’t hit point 2 has just become unnatural.
I’m not comfortable with point 4.
I do not, however, wish to use my feeling about point 4 to invalidate anyone else’s experience of their own gender or anyone else’s choice about their own gender or their own bodies.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 1:01 am
I apologize for the quote marks around innately. I didn’t wish to be dismissive of your feelings or your argument.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Wait a minute — I recognize the use of “kids are okay, late transitioners (’husbands and fathers’) are not”, the growing post lengths, increasing occurance of misspelt words, dismissing feminists who aren’t radical feminists and mentioning MacKinnon.
Anyone else pick up on that?
I knew it.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 6:27 am
Bean writes:
So … all the people who’ve been screwed around and had their opinions about transsexuals severely distorted, what? “Too bad, so sad”?
That’s one of the reasons I don’t trust you, Q Grrl or anyone else from Ms., The Margins, MWMF, or any number of other boards where Renee (let’s just quit calling her Lynne, okay?) did her schtick and y’all just sat back and watched.
You quoted part of a post by Q Grrl saying how evil the Tranz are for whatever, but I don’t recall you standing up to The Person Suspected of Being Minerva and her whacky faux radical feminism. Only one person in this thread has said that what Minerva writes isn’t Radical Feminism. Do you agree or disagree with that? Do you think that what Minerva writes is both an accurate reflection of Radical Feminist theory and an accurate reflection of “transsexuality as it really exists”?
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 7:41 am
That’s a rather extreme statement.
Being social creatures, there is very little human behavior whose expression is not shaped in some way by social forces. Even if there is some biological basis for gender identity, the ways in which that identity is expressed (or even IF that identity is expressed) is guided by customs, mores, and other social forces. Transfolk have existed throughout time, but the position and form of expression allotted to them varies between cultures. Often times, we were not even seen as men or women, but as a members of some third category which was been imbued with spiritual significance. Contrast that with today’s treatment of transfolk as misguided deviants and social pariahs. Regardless of biology, those assigned roles guide how transpeople think of themselves, relate to themselves and relate to others.
I’m a transwoman and I’ve lived on both sides of society’s gender divide. I can assure you that I am treated very differently now that people see me as a woman. That difference has reshaped my behavior in more ways than I can count. I might also add that in spite of any natural inclination that I might have had toward identifying as female, I was initially socialized as a boy. I accepted myself as a boy and behaved similarly to other boys until I was 17 years old. So, biology or no, my childhood socialization had a very real impact on me. Even today, I’m much more androgynous than other women are. I chalk that up to the experiences of my first 17 years of life… and the ideas of feminism, which lead me to reject a lot of traditionally feminine behavior.
I don’t much like what some (and I emphasize “some”) feminists have to say about transpeople, but I have to say that your words worry me even more. Please do not defend me and those like me by reducing our identities to the pure fiat of biology. Those same kinds of arguments have been used to justify all kinds of sexist behaviors and are still used to dismiss the subjugation of women and the possibility of ending this subjugation. I might also add that biological reductionism has been used to justify racism, classism, and numerous other forms of elitism and prejudice. (Does anyone remember a book called “The Bell Curve?”) I assume that is not your intent, but nevertheless, please stop. Those societies which see sex and gender as immutable categories also tend to be societies in which both women and queer people are treated like garbage.
The feminists who say derogatory things about transpeople are a minority among feminists. Being a feminist, I’m thankful for that. However, there are far greater numbers of people like you, Jamier—people who believe that much of gender behavior is innate. By sheer numbers, those who embrace biological determinism can do far more damage to transfolk and women than a few prejudiced feminists can ever hope to achieve.
Thanks for your support, but I’d rather go it alone.
PS: I transitioned early (25 years old) for the time (1994). I’m now a lesbian. I also hung out with mostly boys until my late teens. So your ideas about late transitioners vs. early transitioners certainly doesn’t hold for me. I might also add that if you are living in a conservative culture and have limited access to financial support, you are going to be less likely to transition than someone living in a progressive culture with solid access to financial support. Transition is also governed by social forces.
This comment was written by StacyM.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Actually, that should have read:
“By sheer numbers, those who embrace biological determinism can do far more damage to transfolk and women than a few prejudiced feminists can ever inflict upon transfolk alone.”
I don’t actually believe that feminists who deride transpeople are actually trying to hurt women. I apologize for the misstatement.
This comment was written by StacyM.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Bean writes:
You overly-self-important-twit, I came here because my SON found another feminist blog I’d posted to, we had an actual feminist discussion about actual feminist topics, and I came BACK (as in, returned, as in, you can find some fairly old posts of mine still here) to this incipit discussion with The Person Suspected of Being Minerva holding court.
And calling me a “sick twisted piece of shit” hardly passes for feminist discourse either. Nice to see you break from the “Why can’t we all hold hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’ act you play when when the Tranz Versus Feminist Smackdown gets a’ rollin’.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired - perhaps you’re too busy stirring shit to notice. Aren’t you the one that brought Renee into this argument initially? And then you say you don’t trust us. Hah.
Anyway, and more importantly, I don’t have issues with transsexuals and have in the past and currently do support those who wish to transition, either physically or otherwise.
What I argue against is the efficacy of transgenderism as a political and social movement vis-a-vis patriarchal gender paradigms. And because that gender paradigm tends to produce a great deal of suffering for many women, I’m looking for ways to subvert it. My arguments in this thread have tried to stay true to arguing that transgenderism is transgressive in name only (hence my arguments about the use of cisgender) and that what works for an individual is just that: an identity. As such, I see transgenderism as, alternatively, a shallow politics and a nascent politics.
I made some rather heavy accusations above about how I see a great many transgendered folk acting in ways that patriarchal males do. I do not think that the entirity of trans politics is comprised of these individuals, but their influence and abundance cannot be dismissed — especially, as I’ve seen, when that particular subset of the transgendered community starts maligning lesbians and lesbian feminists. The last thing I like to experience in my queer community is other queers expecting me to conform to external notions of gender just because it’s du jour, hip, trendy, or cutting edge. Now maybe that’s just age speaking, but I rather think it’s because I feel like all the feminist progress of the past 40 years is regressed to accomodate for individuals who mask personal issues as political issues.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 9:24 am
StacyM writes:
(And I’ve read your subsequent ellaboration)
Much of what is “gendered behavior” properly falls outside the scope of “What is feminism about anyway?”, except when it comes to “what does gendered behavior mean?” Feminism, in a nutshell, is about “What does sex mean and why?”
This is where the majority of public proponents of “the transgender ideology” go awry — gendered behavior is taken as proof of something somehow related to “sex”, and that’s where I read posters such as Jamier heading. People who sit to pee are more likely to lack the handy appendage which makes standing to pee feasible, are at least significantly less messy. People who choose to sit to pee, and who have that handy appendage, aren’t somehow supposed to not have that handy appendage EXCEPT that sitting to pee has this meaning ascribed to it — women sit, men stand. That’s where the entire issue of “You’ve never lived in a genderless society” comes in.
Mandolin writes:
The “gender” that’s used in trans discoursive contexts and the “gender” that’s used in feminist discoursive contexts is not the same “gender”.
Trans discourse holds that gendered actions are proof of this thing known as “gender identity”, and if those gendered actions are missing, it’s still proof of “gender identity” because the person in question was suppressing their gender identity in order to survive within the existing system. Summed up, “my thoughts / feelings / behaviors are more common amongst X sex, therefore I should be X sex.”
Feminist discourse holds that gendered behaviors are either biological (in which case “So what”) or are socially imposed. That men and women behave in certain ways because Patriarchy has constructed a set of standards against which men and women are held, and devised an (in-) appropriate set of punishments against those people who do not conform.
Nothing in feminism is concerned with sitting to pee being related to being a woman or a man or a failed man or a transkid. About the best a feminist analysis of “standing or sitting to pee” could say is “Men have a handy appendage which makes it easier for men to stand to pee than for women to do likewise”. Where feminism goes from there has nothing to do with men who choose to sit, or women who buy devices which make it easier for them to stand to pee. And it certainly says nothing which might indicate that men who sit to pee are really women.
It’s this point –
that is the most maddening to me because it then follows that people act in concert with their “true” sex — that this “true” sex is what controls behavior, not personal desire, personal habits, political objectives, or anything else that might influence someones decision to act in some manner. Masculine women aren’t women who like doing stuff society says is more appropriate for men, masculine women are acting out their “true” sex by immitating men. It doesn’t confront that it’s society which made this decision in the first place, it just accepts it. Men like full-contact sports, women like cooking snacks for the men watching full-contact sports on the TeeVee.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 9:51 am
(Argh — I clicked something I shouldn’t have clicked …)
Q Grrl,
Touche’ — I’d not noticed that The Person Suspect of Being Renee hadn’t posted until I made my post at 125.
And no, I don’t see myself as stirring up shit. I agree with probably 90% of what you write, especially in this paragraph –
Trans and feminism intersect so violently, I think, because people-who-used-to-be-men all too often discover (!) that life as women ain’t some bed of roses, then suddenly “discover” feminism at age 40- or 50-something and start intermingling “I always sit to pee” and their justifications for being women with what they think passes for feminist conversations.
“I know what it means to be a woman because I sat to pee as a man!!!”
Hah!
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Alright.
Miraim-Webster Dictionary
es·sen·tial·ism
Pronunciation: -”li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : an educational theory that ideas and skills basic to a culture should be taught to all alike by time-tested methods — compare PROGRESSIVISM
2 : a philosophical theory ascribing ultimate reality to essence embodied in a thing perceptible to the senses — compare NOMINALISM
3 : the practice of regarding something (as a presumed human trait) as having innate existence or universal validity rather than as being a social, ideological, or intellectual construct
I do not think that the cultured ideas of the social roles of gender should stand, but I don’t believe it’s feasable for them to be toppled, as so far, for the past few thousand years, it hasn’t happened. There’s been some added categories in different cultures, but none has ‘toppled’ the system. I think if it was going to happen, it would have been done somewhere by now, and I haven’t found any histories that even suggests the possibility of that had occured at a point in time. That doesn’t mean there weren’t any, of course, but until/unless I find some, my opinion remains the same.
Second definition. In a gendered role-free society, what you would be judging things on is the senses, because the cultural norms wouldn’t exist as one thing/object/idea being better than another. All you would have left is the senses. Isn’t that what you wanted?
Third definition. I don’t regard human traits as having innate existence or universal validity. What I believe is that people will see what they look like physically, and want a word to describe that. Your body is only innate in the sense that you’re born with it and that it’s a lense that which others veiw you; it can be changed to a degree. Much like the benign hemangiomas I was born with, then had removed. It is innate only in the sense that it’s already there. What one chooses to do with their body, well, ain’t any of my business, it’s theirs.
Please forgive me if I sound a bit rude, but I wasn’t aware you deal with the some of the possible issues faced by ‘transgendered’ people, and have had people stop dating you because of your plans that concern ‘crossing’ over into the ‘other’ gendered category, or had them tell you you’re a sick individual because they do not want any contact whatsoever with people in your situation/body. I believe that even in a society where there is no social gender, people will still ‘transition’ to be physically comfortable with themselves, and that other people might, indeed, not want to date them for whatever reasons that they may have, up to and including what one may happen to have in one’s pants.
Etymology: Utopia, imaginary and ideal country in Utopia (1516) by Sir Thomas More, from Greek ou not, no + topos place
1 : an imaginary and indefinitely remote place
2 often capitalized : a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions
3 : an impractical scheme for social improvement
Your definition of Utopia does indeed fit your desired goal. I encourage you to reconsider your plans for your utopia, as I dislike seeing people fail.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Humans are not perfect, nor will we ever be. Such a place can not possibly exist except in the mind, though it’s a very noble goal to work toward.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 10:13 am
I left the sentence off at an incorrect spot, and looking back, it’s badly worded and will probably not convey my meaning as it stands.
Your body is only innate in the sense that you’re born with it and that it’s a lense that which others veiw you; it can be changed to a degree.
I’d like to replace it with;
Your body is only innate in the sense that you’re born with it, and not as a metaphysical ball of energy. It is a physical thing which others see and take note of. Granted, the ideas surrounding the ‘rightness’ of social genders are cracked and smeared and horribly superglued together, but it’s only a lense none the less, not something innate as you seem to think my beliefs about the socially gendered body constructs are.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Trans discourse holds that gendered actions are proof of this thing known as “gender identity”, and if those gendered actions are missing, it’s still proof of “gender identity” because the person in question was suppressing their gender identity in order to survive within the existing system. Summed up, “my thoughts / feelings / behaviors are more common amongst X sex, therefore I should be X sex.”
Wait, what? I don’t think this is accurate at all.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I’m sorry for the multiple posts, but the third definition of essentalism has struck an question.
3 : the practice of regarding something (as a presumed human trait) as having innate existence or universal validity rather than as being a social, ideological, or intellectual construct.
Do you consider that these presumed human traits include biological sex? Because that’s what I’m saying will not disappear. Or does it not include biological sex, which is what I’m arguing, because biological sex isn’t a ‘presumed trait’ as I took their meaning to be, like long hair for a girl in this culture, or thinking that all men should be and act aggresive. Biological sex is a physical reality, as the human species doesn’t divide to reproduce like single celled organisms.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 10:40 am
This discussion is becoming absurd because of the amount of argument over “what trans people think,” what ideologies trans people must necessarily subscribe to, etc. There’s no such thing as “what trans people think” any more than there is “what women must necessarily think because they’re women” or “what black people think about race.” Trans people, in any sense that’s worthwhile discussing, are a class defined primarily by a set of experiences — not primarily by slapping a label on your forehead. Besides that one set of experiences which they might to some degree have in common with other trans people, they all have a whole bunch of other experiences too, which inform their opinions differently.
Try those last couple sentences out with “women” or any other group too, it starts to make more sense. Yes, there are some points of view and ways of seeing things that you might find more often in common amongst trans people because of certain shared experiences. But you’re not going to find trans people agreeing on any number of political / ideological positions about gender, or whether “trans” means “transgressive” or any of that, any more than you can describe what ideology all women subscribe to or all feminists subscribe to. (Not to mention the fact that there are trans people who are women and feminists too.) And yet, there’s a whole lot of “well if you’re trans, you must believe this, you must be taking actions that have this effect, you must be supporting this ideology.” It’s a little bit absurd. I mean, not all trans people even “transition” to “the opposite gender,” there are genderqueer trans people too who reject gender at a personal level and quite often politically as well.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Holly, to cut to the quick of it, it’s that “quite often politically as well” part that I’m addressing. I don’t think there’s a trans hivemind, although I am entranced with hiveminds and their attendant implications.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Thank you Holly, you’ve typed that much better than I could.
It’s more than a little bit absurd, it’s what I usually see these discussions amount to.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I think I was a little vague in saying “quite often politically as well,” but to explore that part in more detail… yeah, I absolutely agree with a lot of the assertions in this thread that somehow “moving” from one gender to another does not necessarily mean you politically or ideologically reject gender. Neither does “moving” from one gender to a space in which you reject gender for you personally — that’s an individual choice, an identity (or refusal of identity) although it may have political ramifications for you. Thus the “quite often.” But I don’t think either of these “movements” (whatever we’re going to describe that way) necessarily mean you DON’T politically or ideologically reject gender. Just because you reposition yourself in a gendered system — to a different gender, or to some space “outside of gender” — doesn’t mean you oppose gender, but it doesn’t mean you’re in love with gender either. Nobody in this thread has said anything that challenges the two ideas in sentence, as far as I’ve seen.
I will make one minimal assertion though, which is that the act of repositioning yourself, no matter where you end up, makes it slightly more likely for some people to gain different kinds of awareness of gendered systems; and because gender is oppressive, for many people who have progressive values, this awareness can lead to resistance. I think it’s rare, just as people who question ideological authorities in general are rare, but even for that reason, I think “repositioning” can be worthwhile. And that’s to say nothing of more important reasons such as survival within an oppressive system that’s try to quash you as a reject.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Piny writes, starting with a quote from me:
I’m sorry if I assumed something about you that I shouldn’t. I’m usually fairly good about noticing who supprts “I’m Tranz because I’m more like that group than the group I was born into.” However, the number of Tranz I’ve met over the years who don’t support a variation of “I’m Tranz because I’m more like that group than the group I was born into” can be counted on the fingers of both hands, with fingers left over.
So … why are you Tranz? How do you explain it to others? And for bonus points, how do you justify that within a feminist context?
Feel free to pass on this request if it’s personal or something you’re not interested in sharing. This isn’t a setup or anything, I’m just curious about non-standard trans discourses is all.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 11:40 am
So … why are you Tranz? How do you explain it to others? And for bonus points, how do you justify that within a feminist context?
I think I will pass, if that’s okay. I think that justifying it is rather a fool’s exercise, and don’t want to turn into Lynne. I interrogate my behavior on either side of the divide, but that’s different.
Most of the people I’ve encountered do not say either, “I did these things and therefore I was a boy [or girl] inside,” or, “I wanted to do these things even if I didn’t and therefore I was a boy [or girl] inside.” Sometimes, they point to these desires as an indication of what they were interested in, the same way a dyke might look back on being crushed out on other kindergarten girls, but most of the time it’s no big deal either way. If it indicates an affinity, it’s only in the context of a child’s understanding of what men and women are supposeda do. There are infinite reasons someone might be more or less “like” other people assigned the same gender; none of them are either incompatible with or indicative of transness. Plus, how could you use this theory to explain someone whose conformity post-transition is not particularly strong? Are they latent non-transsexuals?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Piny writes:
“Trans discourse holds that gendered actions are proof of this thing known as “gender identity”, and if those gendered actions are missing, it’s still proof of “gender identity” because the person in question was suppressing their gender identity in order to survive within the existing system. Summed up, “my thoughts / feelings / behaviors are more common amongst X sex, therefore I should be X sex.”
Wait, what? I don’t think this is accurate at all. ”
This is somewhere around the point where I get confused.
Okay. I don’t know if I’m using feminist definitions of gender or anthropological definitions of gender. I suspect the latter.
To me, sex is the physical state of genetalia, usually described in the somewhat inaccurate binary of male/female. Gender is the social construction of meaning that surrounds sex. It includes certain behaviors and attitudes which are labeled sex roles.
In our society (and I believe in many others), masculine and feminine are viewed as a binary dichotomy, much like Americans view black and white.
However, in practice, masculinity and femininity include a lot of overlapping sex roles, though these are often described in different ways. For instance, Americans associate competition with being a masculine trait, cooperation with being a feminine trait. Except not really, because we see women as catty and competitive over appearance and boys, and we see men as being cooperative within team structures, or as being the only sex capable of true friendship, etc. etc.
So what we have is a constellation of behaviors and the ways in which these behaviors are expressed which are generally labeled masculine or feminine.
And this is where the individual comes in, I guess, and makes things confusing.
Obviously, my preference for shiny shiny clothing, skirts, and pink, are not innate. Is my tendency to emulate my mother in those aspects of her behavior that seem determined by sex innate? I don’t know. Maybe.
But I would err on the side of “probably not” just because so much social training goes in to making sure that I identify with my mother and women when it comes to sex roles.
I, as a female-identified individual, act out certain sex roles that are identified with males. My trans friends act out certain sex roles that are identified with the opposite sex. People are way complicated.
Transsexuality can’t be just about sex roles, because masculine women exist without transitioning, feminine men exist without transitioning. Although our construct of masculinity and femininity is binary, the practice of masculinity and femininity is not binary. So why do some people react so strongly to their identification on one side of the binary that they need to switch?
I have heard claims of innateness, and I don’t want to dismiss them. I guess I just don’t understand. As a female-identified, cisgendered person, the times I think most about gender is when I’m looking at their social construction or when they chafe. It’s hard for me to think about gender without looking at sex roles — so it’s hard for me to think about transpeople thinking about gender without looking at sex roles.
The claim of an underlying gender identity separate from sex roles is interesting, but I’m not sure that I understand it com