Language around trans, how it works, how it doesn’t…
| January 16th, 2007[This is Charles] In the long running previous thread on that started out with Amp’s rebuttal of anti-trans arguments, I suggested opening a new thread to refocus and to make the loading time shorter (425 posts and rising, phew!). A huge issue in that thread was the problems of how to talk about trans issues (transitioning, transgender, transexuality, cisgender, …), so I think it might be good to look at how the language works around all this, and what is wrong with the language we use.
I’m going to be lazy, and not do the work I should pulling quotes from the previous thread. Instead, I am going to just post the last comment from the previous thread, as it seems like a good starting point (I hope this is okay with everyone):
BritGirlSF writes:
nexyjo and littlelight - I’d love to hear more from both of you about how you feel about how the language we all use at the moment frames the issues, how it works for you and how it doesn’t. For example, nexyjo said something about not feeling like a woman post-transition even though many other MTF trans people do. How would you define your current gender identity? Or are you not defining it because we don’t seem to have any words that really fit?
I’m not sure if that made sense, I’ll try to clarify if it didn’t. That’s the point I was trying to make earlier, really - our ability to have this conversation is hampered by not having the linguistic tools we need.
January 16th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
The question wasn’t asked of me, but I’ll attempt my own answer. I transitioned almost 10 years ago. Language is an issue, though I have come to some peace with my new pronouns. (I’ve moved from “she” to “he.”) I sometimes wish for gender-neutral pronouns, but I think because they have no context, no cultural buy-in, they feel like they don’t mean anything yet. It’s a chicken and egg problem…until they have meaning, it’s hard to want to use them (feels too much like “it”) and until they are more widely used, they won’t have much meaning.
I am okay with “he” and cringe at “she.” But I do want to be a “he” who can talk about having a period, a baby, and knows what sexism feels like. I don’t mind “transgender” because the “trans” actually feels accurate. I am “across, beyond, and through” gender. I cringe at “transsexual” for a couple of reasons–one is the way it’s associated with “gatekeepers” who seem to want to exclude others. The other is the emphasis on sex. Not only because my gender and identity aren’t all about sex, but also because my particular kind of “transness” is less about sex and body than it is about integrity and gender.
I don’t know it any of that makes sense, since our language is so limited. But I thought I’d give it a try. How would I most like to be known? As Sean, a transgender man who fully embraces his whole life experience and doesn’t find it necessary to hide or choose one side of himself over another.
This comment was written by Sean.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Because I’m addressed directly, I feel like I ought to say this; I apologize if it comes off as a taking-my-toys-and-going-home post.
Honestly, I don’t feel comfortable getting involved in this discussion until the trans people in it actually have our words honored. In the previous thread, most of the trans folk involved dropped out quietly in frustration, and part of the reason is that our arguments and statements were not actually being engaged with. I know I made a number of statements that I was told were in direct contradiction with what I obviously must believe, and even if I argued it, I found much later in the debate that I was still being treated as though I had made the arguments I hadn’t, in reality, made. It didn’t matter if sweeping generalizations and assumptions-without-backup were challenged, because the challenges simply were ignored or were read as the opposite of their content. I have been increasingly frustrated with the kind of conversation going on, and while I’ve tried very hard to be sensible and levelheaded while discussing theories and abstracts that have very real bearing on my actual, flesh-and-blood life, I am discovering that my faculties only go so far. Whether or not it’s considered admissible, proper feminist discourse, my emotions are part of this, too, and they’ve been telling me to back out for a while now.
Until we can respectfully find common ground where different branches of feminist analysis are considered admissible for discussion, where the people whose experiences and lives are being discussed so clinically aren’t shouted down by people who aren’t listening, and where the counter-argument to my argument isn’t, half the time, “Well, you don’t really believe that / don’t really experience that / don’t know any better because you’re impaired / deluded / cannot be considered a reliable source on your own life,” this conversation cannot happen.
At least, it won’t with me in it. I want to thank the people who, while I disagreed with them, were respectful and actually interacted as though this was a conversation. That said, until the terms of this discussion change, it is not safe space, as far as I’m concerned, and with apologies to our hosts, I’ll be discussing these issues elsewhere.
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
little light - I can certainly understand why you feel that way after some of the things that were said on the last thread, but I really hope that I didn’t say anything that made you feel that way.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.In any case if you want to bow out that’s totally understandable.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
I haven’t figured out how to be a ”he” that can talk about any of that stuff, minus the baby because I don’t have children, without feeling that I don’t have a, well, place. That the total sum of my experiences don’t fit in either category all together, so it doesn’t really leave me room to be anywhere, without censuring myself. I like transgender because it encompasses those experiences, but transsexual irritates me. Because while it’s possible to take on the characteristics that people associate with the opposite sex, the word transexual brings to my mind biological definitions, and the word’s definition can’t include changing someone’s genetics to the opposite side of a spectrum.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Despite being accused of roasting trans people over an open fire, or perhaps wishing to do so, my purpose in life isn’t telling anyone who is or isn’t real or valid or worthy.
I try to avoid claiming that “identity” is the same thing as “practicing” or “experiencing” because I’ve found that it only creates conflict and confusion. I prefer language constructs like “I’ve identified with girls and women my entire life” rather than “I’ve been a woman my entire life.” I think the former is much clearer and more understandable and less prone to creating conflict.
That it seems like such a huge win to me tells me that it’s probably a much better course of action than pounding ones fist on the table and insisting that one was actually a teenage girl in the Boy Scouts and then later a woman flying jet fighters over Vietnam. The “I was really a girl when I received my Eagle award!” bizzarity is enough to make my head spin and split pea soup come out of my nose. Girls? Eagle Scouts? Would that more young girls had learned how to “secretly” be girls while working towards becoming Eagle Scouts.
I came really close to cancelling this post because this thread has all the feel of so many other trans threads “You can’t say anything that hurts my feelings!” Well, guess what — a lot gets said in a lot of feminist discussions that hurts a lot of peoples feelings. No one said feminism was easy or happy or friendly. For all the complaints about “You hurt my feelings!” I don’t see trans people owning that claiming a person who was raised a boy was “really” a girl hurts the feelings of people who were raised girls. This “You hurt my feelings!” thing goes both ways. Heck, if there were 10 ways to go it would go all 10 of them.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
What I got out of the thread was that people’s feelings were hurt not because someone claimed they were raised as a girl and a cisgendered woman took offense, but the reasons people’s feelings were hurt was because some other people absolutely insisted that the experiences of some trans folk must be viewed by the light of a specific framework, and if it didn’t fit that framework, it was to be bludgeoned in with a hammer to *make* it fit.
[Fixed your quotes - Nick]
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
….and I’ve messed up the blockquotes once again.
On the other hand, people’s feelings very well could’ve gotten hurt by someone who insisted they were raised female when they were born male, but what I saw was some people saying they did consider or didn’t consider themselves female, even when they were young, not that they were raised female from the get-go. So if I missed it, could you point it out, FCH? Because if I missed that, I probably misinterpreted something else.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Sean - thanks for responding. The thing that feels wierd (at least to me) about the “neutral” pronouns like “ze” is that they seem very artifical, partly because they’re not in common usage. It would feel very odd to me to refer to someone as “ze”, though I would if they asked me to.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.The “cisgender” issue is an odd one, though. My instinctive feeling is that pressing for that term to be widely adopted is counter-productive because most people experience their gender identity in a fairly uncomplicated way and don’t much like being asked to identify as anything other than “male” or “female”.
This part of your comment intrigued me.
“Not only because my gender and identity aren’t all about sex, but also because my particular kind of “transness” is less about sex and body than it is about integrity and gender.”
See, I don’t think I understand what you mean, and I think it is partly a linguistic problem. What do you mean by integrity and gender?
If I’m being too nosy feel free to tell me to mind my own business.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
FCH,
While I think that your position on the vocabulary of trans-ness is important, I think that the way you have been treating other people’s descriptions of their experiences is extremely disruptive to the discussion. I am therefore asking you not to participate in this thread.
If you would like to make 1 more comment on this thread, please feel free to do so.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Charles,
I think I pretty much said everything I have to say about language in the other thread.
We now return you to your regularly schedule Trans Borg conversation about gender.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 1:11 am
I don’t have a problem with ze, but phonetically, to me hir sounds like ‘here’ and kinda shuts down the connections from my brain to my tongue. I keep trying it out in sentences and it’s like I hear the word ‘here’ and my brain tries to figure out directions to get to somewhere, like on those maps with the big arrows in malls or parks with the teeny little dot that’s supposed to represent where you’re currently at. Like a blasted short circuit. Right after I say hir, mind blanks and scrambles to make some sort of sense from the sounds, but since ze isn’t a homophone of any word I know, I’m fine with it. Hope that makes sense
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 1:14 am
after all these years, i still have no idea what the term “gender identity” means. many trans people tell me that they’ve “felt” like a woman for most of their lives. many others tell me that they’ve “felt” like a man for most of their lives. maybe i’m just too pragmatic for my own good, but i just can’t understand how someone can “feel” like an individual belonging to a class of people they’ve never been a part of.
i’m informed by the “experts” that “gender identity” is defined as the internal sense of feeling like a man or a woman. having never been a woman, and i feel that i can argue that i’ve never been a man (though jewish law would dispute that, as would society in general before 10 years ago), i don’t know how women or men “feel”. i don’t believe anyone has access to another person’s feelings. so the term “gender identity” just doesn’t make sense to me.
fch says:
well, to be perfectly honest, i don’t really identify *with* girls and women. or boys and men, for that matter. i will say that most of the friends i have in my life are men, though i’ve had a few women friends as well. so if i had to choose, i’ll go with the guys to hang with. though interestingly enough, before i transitioned, i more often than not found myself hanging with the women, especially at work. perhaps because the men at my former job all seemed so arrogant. you know, corporate middle and upper management types.
one problem is, many trans people *do* feel themselves to be members of their target sex. so i don’t know that i’d want to disallow their language either.
regarding the search for “words that fit”, i think it’s more a problem with the whole concept of “gender identity”. geez, why can’t i be just me? do i have to pick a label? are we so invested in stereotypes that i need to define myself in a one-word soundbyte, before i’m considered to be a real human being?
well, of course the answer to that, in the context that i have to continue to pay child support and 43% of my son’s college expenses for the next 3.5 years, is yes, i have to pick a label. i have to ensure i’m employable when i go for a job interview and what i look like matches with my legal documentation. but outside that context, in this forum. i’ll have to say that i reject gender, and i reject traditional gender classifications. but at the same time, i want to respect other members of my tribe when they insist on claiming their own gender identity as female or male.
i don’t believe i’ve answered the original question, but i thought i’d check in with my thoughts on the issue.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 3:25 am
nexyjo - You did actually kind of answer my question, or at least go part of the way to answering it, so thanks!
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.For whatever it’s worth my take is that I’m comfortable with having genders labelled “male” and “female”, I just want people to stop using them as an excuse to shoehorn individuals into tight and confining little boxes. I’m also leaning towards the idea that we need to conceptualise of gender as having more than 2 options. Ie, it’s not a binary, it’s a continuum with lots of potential stops along the way. I guess what I’m getting at (poorly and incoherently…sorry, it’s late) is something that looks more like the Kinsey Scale does for sexual orientation and less like “people are either straight or gay, no other options avaliable”. Why can’t there be lots of options?
Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 4:24 am
Bean - Your theory runs counter to the real experiences of people. Your theory is wrong. Your theory is harmful.
This comment was written by Helxx.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Ouch. I find myself in the unusual (if not completly typical for me) position of agreeing with fch and bean, at least wrt to two quotes:
“I prefer language constructs like “I’ve identified with girls and women my entire life” rather than “I’ve been a woman my entire life.” I think the former is much clearer and more understandable and less prone to creating conflict.” and
“Frankly, I don’t think this (or any similar discussion) can or ever will be productive. There are those of us who believe that theory should be informed by and inform practice.” (and, frankly, the rest of bean’s comment).
For that reason, I will also not likely engage in this debate here, although I may put up some of my thoughts on my own blog. Maybe. Someday. When I find time.
I have a firm belief that people all experience gender differently. I really hate that any of us would put down another’s experience (I really honor the experience of the Vietnam fighter pilot who says she was a woman; despite not necessarily believing that for myself). And, I hate that relating that experience and how it translates to belief in the person would cause another pain and/or hurt feelings (I completely get how a person not privileged by the “luck” (some of us don’t find it so lucky) of genital formation react negatively to such an assertion). Language is critically important. So is respectful, thoughtful, compassionate discourse. Bean is correct that this happens in many arenas. I don’t know how to change it. Often, as others have done — either by choice or by fiat — I simply excuse myself from the conversation.
This comment was written by Denise.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Little light writes:
Which words? The ones that you want to use to describe me, or bean; use to create a new identity for *us* because your politics insist that refering to us as women, as female, is somehow disenfranchising to someone else? And then those words are used as a recklessly weak intellectual argument about feminist politics?
No thanks. There is no need for any woman to *ever* have to renegotiate her language to describe herself as “non-trans” or “cisgendered”. That’s complete bullshit. That’s not any different, in practice, then having a bunch of grown males decide for you that because you were born with a cunt you can only like pink and play with Barbies. I’m not seeing, and have not seen, men/males getting this same heat, this same shit, to so carefully police their own language lest they offend transitioners. In fact, what I’m seeing (with the help of Belladame’s screeds) is a totally burying of the political impact of patriarchal norms, an assumption that feminism is responsible for the discomfort of gender, and that once again *women* are the ones that need to make the personal sacrifices to make the greater public comfortable.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Sean writes:
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 8:09 am
what are you talking about?
[blockquote]
In fact, what I’m seeing (with the help of Belladame’s screeds) is a totally burying of the political impact of patriarchal norms, an assumption that feminism is responsible for the discomfort of gender, and that once again *women* are the ones that need to make the personal sacrifices to make the greater public comfortable
[/blockquote]
The only demand trans people have is that you accept our existance.
This comment was written by Helxx.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 8:11 am
There is no need for any woman to *ever* have to renegotiate her language to describe herself as “non-trans” or “cisgendered”.
Does that mean there is never a meaningful distinction between a transwoman and a genetic woman?
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Out here in the “real” world, if someone tells me (or I deduce from clothing and appearance and behavior) that she is a woman, I’m perfectly willing to accept that without further question; so also, men. I’m not going to undress anyone to check on this, nor am I going to delve into their histories, surgical or otherwise. Unless I plan to have sex with someone (and I don’t, since I’ve been married 40 years and I’m perfectly content with that arrangement) the details of anatomy are none of my business.
But then I’m not a part of any of these communities, feminists, transgendered, what have you.
I don’t know how this attitude connects with the language debate, or if it does. I’m just pointing out that there’s a big wide mostly accepting world out here where mostly people are thinking about themselves, not about the details of the lives of people they meet, and where most people are willing to accept other people as they are.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Which I do. I question the politics that are arising from the larger trans community.
Nick: Why would women need to define as “non-trans” or “cisgendered”? I mean, think about it. You’re then placing trans as the root of meaning, which I think would quite explicitly embed trans in the middle of patriarchal gender. Furthermore, I would say that there are differences between women and transwomen. But “meaningful” differences? Meaningful under who’s paradigm?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am
You sort of do. You accept their existence so long as they never say anything that makes you uncomfortable, or define their identities differently from the way you, as the member of the privileged group, want them to define their identities.
Back on the Ms Boards, Rich got plenty of heat about the language he used to refer to trans people. Nor has ANYONE here expressed any offense at you using the word “woman.” The main person expressing offense at other people’s language here is you; you object passionately to anyone in this debate using language other than the language you prefer. Why is that? And what makes you feel you have the right to police the language transwomen and transmen use?
What you’re seeing is completely different from what most folks here, Belledame included, have actually said. When did Belledame — or anyone else who has contributed here in more than a drive-by fashion — say that “feminism is responsible for the discomfort of gender”? Quote the post, please.
Nor are “women” being asked to make some general sacrifice, regarding trans.
I was the one who originally brought up the term “cisgendered” in the earlier post, Q Grrl, and I didn’t intend it to apply to women only. I’m cisgendered as well, and so is Charles and any other non-trans male here. The point of using the term (for me) is partly linguistic convenience - some term is needed, after all (although apparently there is no term you won’t construct as an insult, since you also object to “non”).
The other point is to try and use a term that makes cisgendered people realize that they are positioned in this debate, rather than implicitly dividing the world into unpositioned people and trans people. You have no more right as a cisgendered person to be treated by others as unpositioned than men have a right to be treated by others as the genderless gender, or whites as the raceless race.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:03 am
For that matter, what does “the discomfort of gender” mean in this particular comment? Surely you don’t mean to assert that everyone or every woman or most women feel the discomfort that leads a few people to get SRS, nor the specific resistance these people meet from society at large. But I can’t think offhand of any other way to make sense of what you said.
As for the quote from (I think) Sean: looks to me like they “reify” a real feature of personal experience that society identifies with “gender”.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:12 am
i can’t speak to the words little light was refering to, but as far as i’m concerned, i understand the words in question are the ones i use to describe myself, my politics, my community, and my lived experiences.
regarding others creating new identities for women, i’d like to point out that i’ve never been able to define my own identity. i was identified as transsexual by patriarchal medicine, and placed in the “larger trans community” by feminists, who have defined my politics for me. so yeah, i totally hear you about being forced to renegotiate language, identity, and politics.
and as far as i’m concerned, my politics say no such thing regarding references to you as woman or female as disenfranchising to others. and this is just one of many examples of how my politics and my community are defined for me, without my input or permission.
i don’t mean to be a stickler for details, but may i ask to what politics you refer, and to what “larger trans community” you refer? because i have no idea who or what you’re talking about.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Well Amp, your argument falls apart because “cisgendered” is a purely meaningless term, especially if you’re also insisting upon the “trans” in transgendered.
Please don’t refer to me as cisgenderd again.
Positioned how? Like man, woman, and transgendered doesn’t already acknowledge the positioning of folks in the patriarchy? And besides, I was pretty sure the “debate” was between a transgendered philosophy/politics and feminist theory/politics.
I am not arguing legitimacy of personal acts.
You seem to be arguing that we aren’t already positioned and that trans is the bedrock of the new gender paradigm. Which is intellectually, theoretically impossible based on your use of terms, your use of theory, and ***YOUR*** positioning of identities.
Feminism argues that we are all already positioned, against our individual wills, and I am arguing subsequently that transgenderism, as currently defined does not transgress this positioning, and most certainly does nothing but entrench this positioning when making up terms like “cisgendered”.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Amp:
one gleaning of “cisgenderd” from Wikipedia states this:
Get back to me when you figure out how “man” and “woman” are “on the same side”.
Have you decided to just throw out all feminist theory and practice from the last 40 years so that it makes for a more palatable intellectual chew?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Gahh. Another 425 posts in the offing.
IRL, I just call people what they want to be called. D’oh! I haven’t had someone proclaim their pronoun was ze or whatever, if they did, I’d require a short pronoun primer so I knew about nominative, possessive, plurals, etc. Then I’d proceed with more confidence. It’s none of my business what’s under their shorts - unless there’s a sexual thing in the offing, and you want to call it off under certain anatomical conditions rather than being offensive in flagrante (oops, sorry to have been a tease, bye-bye….).
I don’t have a problem in using “cisgendered” in the discussions about gender. It seems superfluous otherwise. I don’t have a problem with addressing feminist and gender theory, but recognise that transgendered people have a variety of experiences and that a feminist analysis will be made more complicated by the stories of transgendered folk. Well, life is complicated anyhow.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Because you brought this onto your blog as a means to trash the practice and beliefs of radical feminsm. Because you don’t have an ideological dog in this that can actually hunt. Because of the misconceptions about feminism and radical feminism that you are propogating in order for your blog to look like one of the “good guys”, so that you look like you get it, so that you look like you’re down with the underdogs.
But, yeah, what’s your overall track record with women Amp? With feminists? With respecting those boundaries?
You pick fights, make vague accusations, and then want to label me as the overexcited one who is the only one objecting to language. Er. You know. That’s about as intelluctually dishonest as you can get.
And let’s not get this wrong. I’m not “offended” by anything said here; I’m not offended if folks feel comfortable using some terms to describe their lives. But I’m sure as hell going to pick that use apart when it is used to levy criticism at feminism. If you cannot back up your criticism with terms that have substantial meaning, then you’re barking at just a sliver of the moon.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:47 am
I’m talking about the larger trans community in a class based analysis, much like radical feminism addresses “men” in a class based analysis. I’m talking about the going trends and tendancies that I see on-line and IRL.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Positioned how? Like man, woman, and transgendered doesn’t already acknowledge the positioning of folks in the patriarchy? And besides, I was pretty sure the “debate” was between a transgendered philosophy/politics and feminist theory/politics.
Transgendered people are also, and very often, men and women. Those three categories are not workable.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Qgrrl is being obtuse.
Transgender: incongruence between gender self-image, identity, “brain gender” and the person’s original genitalia
“Cisgender”: congruence between gender self-image, identity, “brain gender” and the person’s original genitalia
The gender is not specified. Two cisgender people can be woman and woman, woman and man, man and man.
The “cis” and “trans” prefixes are used most commonly in chemistry to indicate that chemical moities are on the same or on different sides of a chemical bond with 2D architechture. Chirality refers to the same sort of thing but with bond of 3D architecture, and the two possibilities are dextro and levo (right and left).
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:52 am
and another thing, since Amp seemed more interested in trying to snub me then actually read into my reasoning:
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:54 am
And NancyP has little to know working knowledge on how feminists view gender.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:56 am
But “cisgendered” works? Why? Because it neatly wraps men and women up into the same category without all that tricky worrying about how women are socially positioned vis-a-vis men? C’mon now.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Usually discussions here are more courteous.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Also piny, if man and woman don’t work because some transgendered folks are men or women, then I guess you could also say that “transgendered” doesn’t work as a category. Which I was partially arguing, again not about individuals and their relationship to their fee-fees, their puchachies, or their brain cells, but about political terminology and theory.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
In the same sense that ‘white’ wraps Bosnian immigrants and 15th generation American citizens of English descent into the same category without worrying about how they’re positioned vis-a-vis each other, yes.
I don’t think that a discussion that focuses on the cis/trans dichotomy must, by its nature, obliterate the man/woman dichotomy. I think that they’re both good and worthwhile discussions to have, but they’re different axises of discussion, and saying, “in this area, you hold privilege,” does not mean that there are no areas in which you lack privilege.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
But “cisgendered” works? Why? Because it neatly wraps men and women up into the same category without all that tricky worrying about how women are socially positioned vis-a-vis men? C’mon now.
No. Because it describes one particular thing which non-trans men and non-trans women share: the status of not being trans. You may quibble all you like over the particular definition of trans, but there’s nothing invalid about the idea of a category. Cisgendered and transgendered are two categories that exist independent of gender; they do not indicate that someone is or is not male or female, is or is not perceived as male or female, was or was not born male or female, does or does not suffer from misogyny. When, on the other hand, you describe the available categories as “men, women, and transgendered,” you’re lumping all transgendered people into a single category apart from men and women. This is wrong, because transgendered people are men and women. The three categories mostly overlap. It’s like saying, “men, women, and gays.” Transgendered people don’t have gender–presentation, identity, or assignment–in common with each other, so it’s an inconsistent conflation to see from somone so intent on keeping positions under patriarchy carefully delineated.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Also piny, if man and woman don’t work because some transgendered folks are men or women, then I guess you could also say that “transgendered” doesn’t work as a category. Which I was partially arguing, again not about individuals and their relationship to their fee-fees, their puchachies, or their brain cells, but about political terminology and theory.
See my cross-post. It works as a category; it does not depend on those two. You know, it’s not impossible to describe someone as transgendered or not transgendered and also talk about whether they suffer from misogyny as women, or whether they benefit from male privilege as men.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Well Susan, ususally when someone brings out the civility stick it means I’m pretty close to hitting a raw nerve or two.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
How do *you* define “transgendered” piny?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Right! Right! Saying ‘gay straight, or bisexual’ does not obliterate the differences between men and women and how they’re positioned vis-a-vis one another, it just adds to the discussion.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
[quote]
Also piny, if man and woman don’t work because some transgendered folks are men or women, then I guess you could also say that “transgendered” doesn’t work as a category. Which I was partially arguing, again not about individuals and their relationship to their fee-fees, their puchachies, or their brain cells, but about political terminology and theory.
[/quote]
But this is a discussion *about* individuals. If you cant engage with what people expierience in their real lives then whats the point of your political theory?
This comment was written by Helxx.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
How do *you* define “transgendered” piny?
Transgendered usually means people who were assigned x gender at birth and then at some point in their lives cease to identify with it or be placed within it. It’s vague because that can happen in any number of ways. Some transpeople transition legally, physically, and socially, into another gender; some of those are conventional in behavior and post-transition identity and some aren’t. Some transpeople pass as their post-transition gender and some don’t. Some transpeople trigger incongruity-alarms pre-transition and some don’t. Some transpeople identify as something other than “male” or “female” and some don’t–those beliefs can differ from culture to culture and era to era. There are problems common to most transpeople, and most of those center around the fact that you just aren’t allowed to ever be anything besides what you were assigned at birth, or allowed to have a history that doesn’t match what you seem to be now. That kind of incongruity and officially acknowledged categories seen to represent it–e.g. transsexual–are subject to pretty universal hatred and marginalization.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
None of that answers my question, by the way. I
[1] In my post I deliberately avoided using the term “radical feminism,” because I realize that not all radical feminists agree about trans issues, and I don’t think this issue should be used to trash radical feminism as a whole. I don’t have anything against radical feminism, although there are places where I disagree with radical feminist theory; I consider radical feminism an allied movement to what I believe in.
[2] Sure I do. I have an idealogical dedication to freedom from gender constraints and gender-based prejudices. For that reason, the way Lucky and others behaved, and they ideology they upheld, in the IBTP thread was an attack on my own ideology. My post was in self-defense, in my view; my freedom is not a separate and distinct thing from everyone else’s freedom.
[3] I don’t think I’m spreading a misconception about feminism; I think a significant number of feminists, myself included, see the fight for trans freedom as a portion of the larger fight against sexist ideology and for gender freedom; and see many of the anti-trans arguments as based in sexist and regressive assumptions. I think my post fairly represented that view.
I don’t think I’m “down” with anybody; I’ve never been one of the cool kids, and I doubt I ever will be. What does that have to do with anything.
Ad homs will get you nowhere with me. But please attempt to respect the moderation goals of this blog.
I didn’t pick a fight; you came to my blog, not vice-versa. Nor have I made any vague accusations; my criticisms of what you’ve been saying are quite specific.
Finally, you have, in fact, been objecting to language; do you deny that you’ve been objecting to the word “cisgender”?
I haven’t been criticizing feminism. I’ve been criticizing the views of some particular feminists. There’s a difference.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
thank you, i now understand how you’ve come to the inaccurate conclusions about trans politics and communities. would you estimate that most radical feminists also base their theories and analysis of trans politics and communitites on what they see and how they interpret the small number of examples on line and irl?
i’m curious how you would interpret the validity of an analysis of radical feminism based on what an individual can gather on line and irl, especially an individual who doesn’t have access to radical feminist space irl?
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Or they could actually be trying to be civil, or to keep the discussion from turning into a long rant about how/why so-and-so sucks, or pointing out that civil discourse is usually seen on Amp’s blog.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
As others have already pointed out, using “men women and transgendered” as your categories is nonsense. There are multiple, overlapping distinctions; “men women and intersexed” is one such distinction, “transgendered and cisgendered” is another.
Failing to include “cisgendered,” or some word meaning the same thing, as a possible category does fail to acknowledge the position of cisgendered people in society. It is for that reason — as well as convenience — that the word “cisgendered” is a useful contribution to the dialog. In my opinion.
That’s not what I’m arguing at all. I’m arguing that transgendered or cisgendered is one of the multiple ways we are positioned in society; not instead of, but in addition to.
I don’t think anyone here is disagreeing with that. However, pointing out that we have multiple positionings in society — not only female and male, but also gentile and non-gentile, rich and poor, white and of color, straight and queer, abled and disabled, transgendered and cisgendered, etc etc — provides a more accurate understanding of the overall picture.
I don’t think “transgenderism” inherantly transgresses the male/female dichotomy. Nor does it inherently entrench patriarchal gender positioning, except in the same sort of way my going along with being identified as male does.
The way some individual transsexuals view and talk about gender does entrench gender, but so does the way some individual cisgenders view and talk about gender. What’s important isn’t if someone is transgender or cisgender, but what the gender ideology they express (and attempt to enforce) is.
Finally, of course, the way some individual transsexuals view and talk about gender does help fight the oppressive gender system. This includes, in my view, many “open” transsexuals who don’t identify simply as male or female, but also as transwomen and transmen, and who use their position to question the simple gender binary system.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Your blog? The blog you sold for cash? The blog that used the voices and opinions of women and feminists to garner that precious blog standing that earned you, what? was it five figures?
And then you decide you won’t specifically say “radical” feminists, but you were pretty quick to let Luckynkl stand in as the spokesperson for feminism. And you claim you weren’t trying to start something.
Ok, fine. I don’t believe you, and much of what I have written stems from how I perceived your posting to be bait and an attack on feminism because feminism can’t quite seem to frame transgenderism correctly.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
1) I don’t think Luckynkl is a stand-in for all of radical feminism, or much of anything else. Didn’t she spend years denying being a feminist at all? I think she represents bigotry, not feminism, and I said so in my post. (Or anyway, I extensively and approvingly quoted Winter saying so.)
2) Luckynkl was far from the only person I quoted in my post. Responding to her hateful bigotry is not something I’ll apologize for, but neither was it all my post did.
Well, if you’re going to assume that I don’t mean what I say, then I don’t see any reason for you to bother discussing things with me. You can have a much better discussion with yourself; first, you state my views, then you can state your rebuttal to my views. (I”d call that attacking a strawperson, but if that’s what you want to do).
But it’s an ad hom attack, and the problem with ad homs is that they’re illogical. Whether or not I’m sincere in my views (and I am, even though you choose to think otherwise), someone other than me might state the same views and be sincere about them. So it’s more logical for you to respond to the arguments, rather than responding by making personal attacks.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Which I’ve done up until the point where you began with your quasi ad homs about my intentions. I’ve put a lot of thought and effort into my words in these past two threads, so it’s rather offputting to see you sum that effort up as an illogical non-response to the arguments.
Because we all know that when you said this:
it wasn’t an ad hom attack and you were actually attempting to refute what I have said.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Q Grrl,
Do you find a division into 4 genders acceptable? Men, women, transmen, transwomen? This retains your objection to lumping men and women into one category of gender (cisgendered), but recognizes that transmen and transwomen are very differently positioned within the gender system.
Personally, I don’t find that division acceptable, as it obscures the “gender as the categories used in the system of sex oppression” focus on the two genders: men and women. I mean, I have no problem with the use of the terms man, woman, transwoman, transman, but I don’t think that they represent a description of 4 gender categories, any more than white man, white woman, black man, black woman describe 4 genders.
However, if we are going to talk at all about people who are transgendered, then we need to be able to distinguish between people who are transgendered and people who aren’t. We can do that by talking about transgendered people and men and women, but this creates confusion and suggests that one can escape from the binary gender system by becoming trans, which is simply not true, and again obscures the “gender as the categories used in the system of sex oppression” aspect of gender.
People in this society are categorized as men and women. No one really gets to opt out. Some people move from one category to the other. Those people get labeled trans. Some people don’t move from one category to the other. Is your position that there is no need for a term that describes that group of people? That that group of people, because it is made up of both men and women, can not be lumped together for any sort of analysis?
There is a second problem with cisgendered, which I think FCH expressed well on the last thread. If transgendered is associated with transgressing against the gender system, then does that mean that cisgendered people are people who are happy with the gender system? Does that mean that people who hate being categorized as their gender, not because they want to be the other one, but because they hate the system of sex oppression that the gender categories are used in, are still just cisgendered?
To my mind, this problem is caused by ambiguity over what is meant by transgendered. Since it is perfectly possible to be both transgendered and a supporter of the gender system, trans and cis gendered should not be viewed as related to the question of whether or not you support the gender system.
The other ambiguity is over whether people who are gender nonconformists are categorized as cis or trans gendered, and whether being cis gendered implies gender conformity. Since, again, it is perfectly possible to be trans gendered and gender conformist, I don’t think trans and cis gendered should be seen to refer to gender conformity.
Trans and cis gendered should only be seen to refer to whether you are (or desire to be) categorized as the other gender from the gender category you were placed in at birth. If you are (or desire to be) then you are trans gendered. If you aren’t (or don’t want to be), then you aren’t trans-gendered. Since you ask not to be categorized as cis-gendered (and as non-trans), is there any way of talking about the fact that you (presumably) don’t want to change from your currently assigned gender category to the other available gender category that you would find acceptable?
Or am I completely off-base?
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I only really half answered this question upthread, and in a bit of a disjointed take-off of Sean’s reply, at that. So I’m going to try a bit harder. Right now, I don’t define my gender identity. For pronouns I rather prefer ‘he’ but there’s experiences in my life that most people automatically exclude as being something that a guy can experience, and vice versa, so I’m not sure I can claim male or female and still have all the criteria needed for people to grasp experiences such as mine in that male/female context. But he works pretty well when I’m out and about in life, and as a pronoun it’s sort of comfy like an old shoe, well worn but falling apart at the seams when it’s closely scrutinized by others.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
You’re not off-base Charles, but there’s a lot there to address, and you pointed out a few blind spots of mine. I’m not sure I have the time today to address them though.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I don’t know if this would work or not, but could one problem with the terminology be that it seems too restrictive?
I don’t want to misrepresent Qgrrl, but my interpretation of what she’s saying is that she doesn’t feel like the term cisgendered applies to her because it signifies one who has an aligned gender identity and physical sex, whereas I get the feeling that she views gender as inherently problematic rather than aligned. (My apologies if that’s not what you were saying at all, Qgrrl.)
If transgender is a category that encompasses people who are dissatisfied with their gender identity, and cisgender encompasses people who are not trans, maybe there could be a couple other categories, such as:
Transgender - current def.
Cisgender - one who does not experience significant disharmony between gender identity and physical sex/expected gender
(some other term, or multiplicity of terms) - one who does experience significant disharmony between gender identity and physical sex/expected gender, but expresses it in a different way than transpeople
genderfree - one who experiences no feeling of gender identity at all
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I have a lot more to say, but am currently moving cross-country. Will be back in a few days, if the thread is not yet dead.
This comment was written by Sean.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I don’t think that’s all transgender encompasses right now, though. Aren’t ‘crossdressers’ (Oh how I hate that term) considered transgender as well? I thought the majority were fine with their identity. And if a new word was made for the people who felt fine in their identity but exhibited behaviors that aren’t ‘appropriate’ would we need a new word for the issues we face as a group? (since the majority doesn’t bother to learn the difference between us anyway)
The second quote sounds like it’s separating transexuals from other forms of transgressing gendered behavior by means of surgery/hormones, and there’s a bit of a hierarchy in real life as it is.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I never thought transvestites were transgendered. They were expressly excluded from the category as I was taught it academically.
“The second quote sounds like it’s separating transexuals from other forms of transgressing gendered behavior by means of surgery/hormones, and there’s a bit of a hierarchy in real life as it is”
I didn’t intend to. I was trying to make space for peopel who are unhappy with their gender, btu who don’t identify as transsexual or transgender.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Ah, that would explain it, I haven’t been to college.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
genderfree has the problem that I don’t think anyone is free of the system of gender. I know that isn’t what you mean it to mean, but it is a term guaranteed to throw red flags all over the place.
I think dividing things out into as many different axes as possible, and then recombining is helpful, so
the 3 I suggested in comment 53 were
gender conformist vs. gender non-comformist
pro-gender vs. anti-gender
trans-gender vs. cis-gender
but I’m sure there are more
genderfree probably gets at another of axis, one relating to gender identification
maybe
gender identified vs. not gender identified
and of course, the originating axes for all the others:
the biological
biologically male vs. biologically female (which could get split out into a bunch of axes)
the gender system
man vs. woman,
which also spawns:
masculine vs. not-masculine, and feminine vs. not-feminine
So I am biologically male, a man, mostly cis-gendered, somewhat masculine, slightly feminine, somewhat gender-identified, strongly anti-gender, and slightly gender-conformist.
I’m sure there are others that one could come up with. I don’t know how useful this sort of splitting is.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I think the added words were suggested because QGrrl didn’t like being refered to as cisgendered, and a few others didn’t like it either for various reasons. I don’t understand how some claimed it would replace or add to the gender category though, as neither trans or cis is a gender, it describes direction or lack thereof.
This comment was written by ArrogantWorm.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2007 at 12:23 am
GL, this is spot on. I get enough of “Is it true that you have the most womanly prostrate ever? How does it feel to know you will always be a mutilated man?“ on my own blog. The last thread evolved into a shouting match, not a dialogue or debate.
Furry, what you say makes a lot of sense. Especially for someone that’s thought a lot about this. But many people live in silence “identifying with girls and women” because we’ve been ridiculed when we expressed it. It’s easy to put your words together for you, because you’re looking from the outside in. But we’ve grown up being told that we are boys and that our feelings aren’t ok.
The words you say are more true, at least for me. I’ve been socialized as a male most of my life. But how I’ve felt and how I’ve lived, are two totally different things. I have said in the past that I felt I was born in the wrong body, but it was because those were the best words I could come up to express how I felt. How you phrased it is more to the point of how I felt.
I know GL, and Nexy here, and I know they are both very strong people. We aren’t delicate flowers that will wilt at the slightest touch. I pass under the radar in my personal life, but for a long time I didn’t . Unless you’ve lived this life, you have no idea the kind of shame and hate that is piled on us. Personally, I’ll debate in some really hostile environments if I think it’s going to educate or illuminate. But I’ve seen enough hate in my life. Try this or this on for size. You’ll get an idea of the kind of hate we face in our daily lives.
When I have this kind of drama in my real life, I have a really short fuse for hate with my online life. I come here to learn and to educate. I come here to dialogue. I come here to share. I come here to explore. But I am not here to look for someone to tell me who and what I am.
I do believe these discussions can and are, at times, productive. I’m always challenging the reasoning of my own thoughts and actions. I know other people have benefited from the conversations as well. I’ve also benefited from the gift of being introduced to some really wonderful people.
Staying or going is a matter of respect and decorum. Reading further down the thread it’s obvious to me that there are two camps. I side with Amp, Nexy and GL. The two folks in the other camp that are on the blog seem to be Q Grrl and mandolin. Mandolin in the last thread and Q Grrl seem to be overly hostile and aggressive. I have enough of that (see above) in my own life. This tit-for-tat aggression does nothing for me.
So on that note…
*poof*
This comment was written by Marti Abernathey.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2007 at 1:33 am
have any words that really fit? after all these years, i still have no idea what the term “gender identity” means. many trans people … ■Comment on Language around trans, how it works, how it doesn’t… by …（Google Blog Search: a-blog） http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/01/16/language-around-trans-how-it-works-how-it-doesnt/#comment-228445 I don’t have a problem with ze, but phonetically, to me hir sounds like ‘here’ and kinda shuts down the connections from my brain to my tongue. I keep trying it out in sentences and it’s like I hear the word ‘here’ and my brain tries to …
This comment was written by a-blog馬鹿.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Hey marti, don’t let the door hit you on you way out. It sucks that a strong female opinion can still be labled overly aggressive. Would it be easier if I were all pansy and passive-aggressive?
Anyhoo, according to this:
I am apparently transgendered. Which I suppose goes back to showing that no matter how you identify internally in regards to your gender, what really counts is how the rest of the chumps see you.
Men tell me I’m just a woman, some transgendered folk call me cisgendered, and some queers will call me transgendered. Funny how I’m the least likely to be able to define the meaning of my being born female and living as such in the 21st century. I guess being a gender radical only counts if you publically announce it, eh?, and then follow the guidebook.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Charles writes:
I don’t think that further dividing gender is going to change anything as long as the premise of gender, as gender, is one of power-over, rightness and wrongness, strenth and weakness. Without addressing that core function of gender, further divisions only tend to strengthen these rather primary functions of gender. And further, how are transmen and transwomen “very differently” positioned within the gender system? Most trans-narratives do not differ vastly from the experiences of women I know, as far as discomfort with gendered expectations and how gender inhibits personal autonomy and expression. The only major difference is the internal narrative of individuals who claim an identity and label of transgendered. The external realities, however, appear nearly parallel.
Language is symbol. If we simply choose different symbols, or more symbols, without changing the root of the symbology, what have we gained?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Hi Charles,
The axes system makes sense.
Hi AW,
Apologies if my linguistic stab in the dark gave offense.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Marti,
I’ve been respectfully asked not to participate in this thread. I will ask you (and anyone else who might feel the urge) to respectfully refrain from quoting my posts here. I think it’s unfair that you can take my posts, then respond to them and I can’t respond back.
I’d also like to ask the mods to delete any quoted material of mine that shows up in this thread in the future.