Transphobic Tropes #4 – “My Theories Are More Important Than Your Experience”
(false consciousness edition, co-written with Lisa)
I had a half-written post about de-humanisation, but a lot of people have covered this rather well, so I think I’ll hold it back for another time. It’ll come in handy again, believe. Like most of these tropes, most of the examples I’ll use are about trans women, I really should write some more FtM specific ones.
What I want to talk about this time is how trans people are positioned outside of discourse, and our thoughts, motivations and desires are ventriloquised by an array of “experts,” including feminists and queer theorists of all stripes.
One of the comments I made on Laura’s thread on the F Word blog was that trans women are continually posited as naïve in feminist arguments, as though we couldn’t have possibly read any feminist theory, understood it, and still find it problematic to describe our experience. Or heaven forbid, be a trans academic or writer like Susan Stryker, Jay Prosser, Viviane Namaste, Julia Serano or Sandy Stone.
So you have, apparently, on the one side feminist theorists, bloggers etc, armed with a sophisticated array of theory. “Gender is not real,” social construction, all the fruits of the 40 year feminist push towards de-naturalising gender. Many of which, from French feminism to Judith Butler, is heavily influenced by the various anti-humanist currents of structuralist, post-structuralism, Marxism, psychoanalysis etc. And even online “rad-fems” are aware that to be essentialist is indeed A Very Bad Thing, though some seem to be not entirely sure why.
And then, on the other, you have these poor deluded trannies, who actually think gender is real. So real, in fact, that they have to do something about changing their bodies. And that right there lies the crux of the “reifying gender” argument, that by changing gendered bodies you are making something that is not real solid.
What twaddle. And what a fracking useless application of social constructionist theory.
A social constructionist/performative idea of gender can just as easily assume that as gender is constructed through the re-iteration of behaviours and the already-gendered body matter, trans people’s gender is as socially constructed as anyone else’s. And hence EXACTLY as real. And EXACTLY as fake.
And indeed, that’d be the way a whole swathe of queer theory reads transness (which is problematic in another way – read Viviane Namaste for a postcolonial trans feminist critique of Judith Butler for not paying sufficient attention to the specific contexts of trans subjectivities).
But this “gender is not real” thing is almost always used to ONLY illuminate the falseness of trans genders. And considering the notion that we are “really” a man or woman despite appearances tends to feed into transphobic discourse, legislation and eventually violence, I think it is worthy of refuting those non-trans normative biases and presumptions.
See some feminist and queer theorists approach trans women by applying different rules—a cis woman’s identification as woman is unquestionable, but a trans woman’s identification as woman is incomprehensible because gender doesn’t exist.
It is apparently not possible to identify as a woman, to live as a woman, if you’re transgendered and meet the feminist standard of anti-humanist anti-essentialist social constructionism.
Because the double-bind here is, either you meet societal expectations of a feminine gender presentation, in order to pass on a day-to-day basis without the massive amounts of harassment from the general public a non-passing trans person. In which case you’re a misogynistic man just acting out the dictates of the Patriarchy onto the entire female gender. There we go, polluting the ontology again.
Or, you do not have a traditionally feminine gender presentation, or you’re too loud, too “aggressive,” in which case, well, evidence that you’re really a man. The defense rests, your Honour.
Now imagine, if you are in fact, a cis feminist, a woman whose gender presentation matches her documents, well, how radical is your departure from gender categories? How much are you reifying gender, every single day, without every realising it?
It’s all very well to say “fuck gender,” but what do your documents say? Do you have to travel looking one way and having your documents say another? Because driver’s licenses and passports and 50 other million things have genders on them, and that tiny little M or F makes a massive amount of difference when your documents don’t match up. And most governments make it difficult, expensive, and sometimes totally impossible to change that marker.
This is all part of the social construction of gender–not just the performative, or the Butlerian “gender all the way down” notion of the sexed body–cis people benefit from the freedom of not being considered potential criminals, frauds or even terror suspects (US Homeland Security memo about “cross-dressing terrorists”) by institutions in countless ways. And then there’s Social Security “no-matches” that can out trans people to employers, and very little anti-discrimination legislation etc etc.
Of course, many of these people (eg Sheila Jeffreys, J Michael Bailey, Catherine Millot etc etc) will explicitly say that you cannot believe anything trans people say about our experiences, anyway.
Others say things like “I’m not aware of my gender, why should you be aware of yours?” but resist any explanation that dissonance or lack of dissonance could play any role there – and the fact is, everyone is aware of their gender, it’s just that cis people don’t have to acknowledge that awareness despite the fact that it shapes so much of what they do. For example, a man who insists that he doesn’t really think of himself in terms of masculinity will then turn around and do a great many gendered-masculine things. This of course betrays the fact that he thoroughly considers himself to be not only masculine, but a man.
This notion of an ontology of gender—a category of being “male” or “female”—is one that cis people buy into as much as trans people. The difference is, our identification is constituted from the start as illegitimate.
For instanct, trans women are told—and notice how this work in conjunction with its opposite, transness as “deception”—you cannot be a woman, you can only approximate it. And badly.
And so, the goalposts constantly shift- the fact is that trans people can and do answer questions about being trans. Deciding that “woman trapped in a man’s body” is an unacceptable narrative, but not seeing any other narrative as legitimate, either. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve said “it just felt wrong to be male” only to have someone say, “well everyone struggles with that. Nobody really feels they properly fit their gender.” Yes, well there is a difference between gender roles/stereotypes and the gender itself, and the conflation is irritating. And since we don’t always cooperate, they shift the goalposts a bit and ask again – often stating the answer is something they can’t identify with, thus it’s wrong.
And of course there’s the unending stream of strawmen, false dilemmas, question begging, catch-22s, double-binds. Logic must be sacrificed to
explain away the existence of a trans person who can speak for herself and himself and refuses to accept definitions imposed on them. People are threatened by the simple assertion of personhood, of agency. Of saying, these theories you apply to me, they do not work. They’re not true, and I refuse to accept them.
Like I said in my open letter, every conversation about trans people must automatically centre on the reactions of cis people. The limitations of their imaginations must axiomatically be the limits on our behavior.
You see, my body, my choice only applies to some people, some bodies, some choices.
Transitioning is metaphorically killing our mothers as Germaine Greer put it in The Whole Woman. Or the notion that trans women are most “naturally suited” for prostitution or perverts transitioning to get ourselves of proposed by J Michael Bailey in The Man Who Would Be Queen.
And thus, since our experience has been precluded from the start from the field of discourse, trans people are hopeless dupes of the medical
profession, who provide us with placebo treatments because we won’t
allow them to cure the root cause of our desires – whatever that root
cause may be. We’re cajoled, tricked, and coerced to seek surgery, we
never independently come to the conclusion that we want to change our
sex before we even hear it’s possible. And we are, after all, still the proud recipients of all that Patriarchal privilege.
Why would you need to hear from trans people—or heaven forbid read some theory by trans people—when you already know better than we do, our own histories, motivations, and desires? I mean, honestly.
This post is totally brilliant and I’m sitting here cheering. :)
Trin
9 Aug 08 at 8:28 am
Beautiful, Em. You’ve been knocking me over over and over with these posts.
little light
9 Aug 08 at 9:50 am
Hey, you know who knows more about your own life than you do? Everybody who isn’t you, apparently.
This is a great post, as usual!
Ms Uppity
9 Aug 08 at 11:39 am
This is brilliant – thank you.
harrietsdaughter
9 Aug 08 at 12:18 pm
“I’m not aware of my gender, why should you be aware of yours?” and “The limitations of their imaginations must axiomatically be the limits on our behavior.” YES.
okay. so here is why i don’t understand how some feminists can be SO OBTUSE about trans issues. if one were to say, “I’m not aware of my *race*, why should you be aware of yours?” we’d call them on it instantly – whoa there, check your white privilege at the door, please! and if *men* got up in their faces telling them that sexism doesn’t exist because men can’t see it, or can’t relate to it, they’d get called on their male privilege.
so how some feminists can parrot more or less the same arguments as racists and sexists, and not see what they are doing for what it is… well, it gives me a headache.
silver
9 Aug 08 at 3:56 pm
“You see, my body, my choice only applies to some people, some bodies, some choices.”
I think that this is one of the underlying problems for a lot of folks who have problems with feminism. A lot of feminist rhetoric out there such as “my body, my choice” is aimed a white, middle-class, straight, cis-gendered female bodies.
This is a great post, something I will mull over again and again.
quiteneil
9 Aug 08 at 4:49 pm
Ventriloquised! What a perfect word this is. Great post, once again.
Bev
9 Aug 08 at 6:14 pm
I am so writing a post on genderblindness later today or tomorrow.
Lisa Harney
9 Aug 08 at 6:24 pm
Yeah, and even there, there’s feminist theory that suggests that many things women do don’t count as “choices” because of patriarchal coercion, too. Which kind of makes me wonder how exactly people can doublethink so well that they can hold BOTH “my body, my choice!” wrt abortion, and “That’s not a choice, this is Patriarchy baby!” wrt so many other things, in their heads at the exact same time.
Trin
9 Aug 08 at 7:53 pm
Amanda Marcotte explained it rather thoroughly from within the mindset that “choice” applies to reproductive freedom and not breast implants.
Which tells me that reproductive freedom is important and that any further bodily autonomy is not.
Lisa Harney
9 Aug 08 at 8:23 pm
[...] this post at Questioning Transphobia: But this “gender is not real” thing is almost always used to ONLY [...]
What she said « Ideologically Impure
9 Aug 08 at 8:57 pm
Amen.
Alma Cork
10 Aug 08 at 3:11 am
And “reproductive freedom” means “I can get an abortion if I want”. The fact that some of us are expected not to reproduce because it’s icky-squicky in various ways also doesn’t count as a bodily autonomy issue.
Nick Kiddle
10 Aug 08 at 9:10 am
(((bows to her Queen)))
I think it is helpful to argue, for instance, that Joan of Arc, people like that, were trans. The Lakota had a special word for transwomyn. Transpeople have been around since the beginning of TIME. I think most radfems KNOW this, and in fact, people like Germaine Greer once used this historic fact to argue that gender is mutable and NOT connected to genitalia and/or chromosomes.
Regarding radfems, it seems their trouble is with MODERN MEDICINE. Ask them about people who passed back in the day, and did they have a problem with those people? Usually not. It is surgery and hormones that apparently freak people out; more the surgery than the hormones. Lots of cisgendered people take hormones for all kinds of reasons (Andrew Sullivan wrote about taking testosterone as an HIV+ gay man, yet begrudges transmen this same hormone–say WHAT?) …and for this reason, most aren’t that alarmed by simple hormones. But surgery is an emotionally laden thing… women have had hysterectomies, mastectomies, etc and find this alarming. When I read that transmen had mastectomies I got upset over it; my mother endured a lot of pain with hers. When some radfems use the term “mutilation”–I think sometimes they are speaking of their/our own feelings about how often these procedures were forced on women who did not want them. (My own sentiments, anyway.) This kind of surgery has lots of psychological baggage in our culture, particularly with women, who are usually (always?) the caretakers of others.
So, for all of these reasons, I think it should be emphasized by trans activists, that not everyone chooses surgery. Surgery squicks people, any surgery, and I include myself! Once I UNDERSTOOD there was no OFFICIAL SURGERY REQUIREMENT to be considered trans (I really thought there was, or something)–I realized surgery was often for reasons of “safety”, legality, immigration, etc. Also, the trans community ITSELF is not totally united on the importance of surgery, so I had to actually study up on the topic.
But for myself and my politics, once I realized that some people have surgery, some don’t, some are relatively feminine transwomyn, some are butch, some are feminine transmen, etc. etc. And I suddenly saw the diversity; you know, like REGULAR PEOPLE? :P There’s no party line and surgery, like so much else, is about what you feel personally comfortable with. When I learned some transpeople, including bigshot writers and activists, never have surgery, I felt I could completely support trans activism as a healthy and diverse movement. There is no OFFICIAL SURGERY you must have. This is optional for people (or, it should be!) and an individual choice. I am interested in learning (respectfully, without argument) how various transfolks arrive at these decisions, as I am interested in learning how ANYONE decides on cosmetic surgery.
But I used to fixate on the surgery. And I wonder how many cisgendered feminists also do? Getting away from the whole SURGERY fixation would do wonders for the movement, in my humble opinion. Repeat this at every opportunity: SOME PEOPLE NEVER HAVE SURGERY. SOME DO NOT EVEN DO HORMONES! AND YOU CAN’T EVEN TELL WHICH ONES! This cold hard fact is what stopped me dead in my tracks, and I think it is wise to repeat it often.
Just my two cents.
(((bows again to Queen)))
DaisyDeadhead
10 Aug 08 at 12:00 pm
Hello Daisy
I think this is an important point, and it’s not always the cultural feminists (my personal view is that they are not radical) who misunderstand.
Transitioning means many things to many people; some may transition up to and including genital reconstructive surgery, some may not. In part this is down to what the individual feels to be right for hir – but I believe there may also be a classist subtext, namely, does the trans person have the means to pay for this surgery?
This misunderstanding has recently manifested itself (on another blog) in the interesting sight of a cultfem and an HBS trans woman agreeing with each other…
I wonder also if there’s a case to be made for saying that either you’re in favour of medical intervention or you’re not. Perhaps that’s a bit oversimplistic, though.
Helen G
10 Aug 08 at 2:24 pm
Hi,
while I don’t like experts talking in place of trans people and more importantly,, I have trouble with some tendency that I perceive a bit as saying “you’re not trans, you can’t understand, you can’t talk about trans issues” and opposing “cis” and “trans” as very different things. To take one example in what you say:
“I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve said “it just felt wrong to be male” only to have someone say, “well everyone struggles with that. Nobody really feels they properly fit their gender.
Yes, well there is a difference between gender roles/stereotypes and the gender itself”
Besides the fact that I still have difficulties dissociating the two (must be my cis privilege :p), why wouldn’t “cis” people also have problem with “gender itself”? What bothers me in the answer you quite if when it is used to say that you shoud just cope with it, but I think we acknowledge that not only trans have problems with gender itself. I think many people have comparable trouble, on a different scale, but might find other ways than being trans to feel OK.
I have the impression (but I might be wrong) that a consequent number of feminist who are critical of “transgenderism” are actually not “cisgender” and maybe we should recognize that in order to have some real discussion.
Besides, this is quite OT, but, DaisyDeadHead:
“I think it is helpful to argue, for instance, that Joan of Arc, people like that, were trans.”
I don’t agree with that. Maybe it would be helpful but I think it is wrong. The notion of “trans” is a modern (and occidental) one, and I don’t think it is very convenient to use it for cultures or eras where it didn’t/doesn’t really exist.
I think there was quite a number of women who took up male identities in order to access jobs which were only accorded to men (e.g. military ones). Does that makes them trans ? I don’t think so. That doesn’t mean you can’t make some comparisons, but I think we should be cautious about appliyng modern terms to other cultures (it’s the same thing for me than saying ancient greeks were ‘gay’.)
But I agree with the rest of your comment about surgery. It makes me want to scream when I try to talk about trans issues and in front of me people only think about surgery.
Elly
10 Aug 08 at 4:00 pm
Actually, Elly, I happen to be someone researching in depth on the history of Jeanne d’Arc (Joan of Arc), and it’s actually rather clear from reading on the topic, that she was not just posing as a male to access the job. She was very up front about her birth sex with everyone around her; everyone on both sides knew from the beginning that she was born female.
(Side note: It’s something of an oddity that in an age of warriors, knights, kings and legends, that the most meticulously documented life of that age is that of a masculine peasant girl from a small provincial town.)
I would not, however, assume her to be transsexual, but certainly transgendered in at least the context of someone who consistently voiced her preference for male clothing. Indeed, it was not court politicking or her role in the coronation of King Charles at Reims (while it was deep in enemy territory) that did her in. Her sentence was commuted and she was allowed to live, provided that she wore feminine clothing. However, she went to the stake because she wore pants– So strong was her preference for masculine dress that SHE DIED FOR IT.
And as a transwoman, I can’t think of a better historical parallel to the modern transgender experience: Dying for it. :(
Cass
10 Aug 08 at 8:02 pm
That’s not what Emily is saying. She’s not saying “You’re not trans, you can’t understand.” She’s saying that cis people attempt to use a stated lack of understanding as a reason to not accept what trans people say about ourselves.
Also, I do think there are elements of the trans experience that cis people just don’t understand, and I don’t see why there’s anything wrong with pointing that out.
Emily’s not saying that cis people don’t have trouble with gender. Lots of cis people talk about having trouble with gender. Emily’s saying that cis people often generalize their own trouble with gender onto trans people, and act as if the trouble that trans people have with gender and sex is equivalent to their own dissatisfaction with gender roles or other aspects of gender.
Are you saying that they’re really transgender? Genderqueer? Transsexual? Some combination of the above? I don’t know how any kind of dialogue could be established by suggesting this – I’m pretty sure it’d piss a lot of people right off.
Some feminists have stated that they don’t feel that cisgender really applies to them, and explained how they don’t conform to gender roles (Q Grrl on either Feministe or Alas, A Blog did this), but most who reject cisgender or cissexual revise the word to mean something else – say, something that precludes being male or female, as if trans is a third gender, and thus cis is seen as a fourth. Of course, this also means that they don’t see trans people as properly men or women, and I think if they want real discussion, they’d have to acknowledge that a large number of trans people are men or women, and that “trans” is not automatically an identity that is neither man nor woman.
I disagree with this statement. For comparison, the notion of homosexuality is a modern one, but it’s not hard to find examples of same-sex attraction and relationships throughout society.
I also disagree that “trans” is a western concept. Numerous cultures throughout human history and all over the world have made room for people who were born one sex but consider themselves the other. Whether that room was respectful or not is another notion entirely, but while hormonal and surgical intervention has only been available for 60 years or so, I think evidence is sufficient that people who would seek out surgery and hormones were it available have existed everywhere that humans have. Harry Benjamin did not invent trans people, they came to him seeking help, and he developed his theories and treatment based on that.
I really get frustrated with the idea that trans people are a modern invention when it is simply the taxonomy and medical procedures available to us now that are the modern invention.
Lisa Harney
10 Aug 08 at 9:10 pm
Awesome.
belledame222
10 Aug 08 at 11:39 pm
Addendum:
I see my previous post could seem like an attack – it’s not meant to be.
I know, especially, that people don’t like being told that there’s something that they might not understand – and I know that’s frustrating. I think that there are experiences that people without privilege experience that people with privilege do not, and without experiencing them, understanding is not easy. I don’t think most cis people really can understand what it’s like to grow up trans – not just getting that a trans person’s sense of her body is at odds with the physical reality of her body, but how that affects us as we grow up – how we receive gendered messages, how we try to present as our birth sex, how we cope with this, and what ultimately allows us to cope until we can’t.
But saying this shouldn’t be a slight.
Lisa Harney
11 Aug 08 at 2:29 am
Lisa:
About the “trans is a modern/occidental concept”, my purpose is not to say that there weren’t any cases of people who considered the opoosite gender they were assigned or something but that the ter m itself is modern. To take back the comparison with homosexuality, there were people having same-sex relationship in many cultures, but I don’t think using the modern “gay” term very relevant.
And it’s the same think for cultures. I am not certain it’s relevant to use the “trans” term to talk about, e.g. hijras from India or Albania’s sworn virgins. Now of course, if hijras consider themselves being trans, I have no problem with it, but what bothers me is applying modern and occidental categorizations to people who don’t have their word to say about it (and dead people are a good example of people who will have difficulties protesting).
Elly
11 Aug 08 at 4:06 am
Lisa:
“She’s saying that cis people attempt to use a stated lack of understanding as a reason to not accept what trans people say about ourselves.”
Ok, I understood that wrongly. Sorry.
“Also, I do think there are elements of the trans experience that cis people just don’t understand, and I don’t see why there’s anything wrong with pointing that out.”
The problem I have with that is that I sometimes have the impression that on one side, there are cis people who can’t understand (everything of) what being trans it, and on the other trans who know what it is to be trans.
But I don’t think that’s correct. Being trans makes you understand what it is to you being trans, but given that it embraces very different things I doubt it can give you an understanding of what it is like to be trans in general.
At least, I know I can understand some trans people who have an experience very close to me, while I have trouble understanding some others (and they have trouble understanding my experience too).
And that’s the same thing with cis people, who are not an homogenous block either. I know many cis people won’t be able to understand my experience, but there are also some (usually gays or lesbians, and I think more lesbians than gays) who can, because despite the cis/trans “frontier” we share common experience.
Now maybe those are my feelings because I am myself a bit at this “frontier” and have sometimes still have trouble completely identifiying with being “trans”.
“Are you saying that they’re really transgender? Genderqueer? Transsexual?”
No. What i wanted to say was that cis/trans should not be a binary opposition, you’re one or the other. I think some people can be neither, or between the two.
Now, OTOH, I actually know some feminists critical of transgenderism who turned out to be transgender ; and I think they were all the most critical because what they saw of “transgender people” (in the media or even trans groups) didn’t correspond to them and was excluding them. (But they eventually realized that there was room for them in transgender, so it’s an happy end.)
Elly
11 Aug 08 at 4:50 am
Well, I’m not saying that cis or trans people are homogenous blocks, or that I understand everything about all other trans people. I do know, however, that a large number of trans people who seek physical transition (that is, classically transsexual) report histories and feelings nearly identical to mine, and I know that a large number of cis people come just short of accusing me of lying when I explain my history while at the same time claiming they know all about trans people.
I’m not saying that all cis people have the same experiences and all trans people have the same experiences, but I’ve seen cis people try to put trans into the same category as body dysmorphia, into the same category as being overweight, of not being seen as attractive, and having experienced some of those – being overweight, for example – I don’t find them really all that similar.
Anyway, I would argue that cissexual and transsexual imply a binary, but the fact that transgender and genderqueer people exist, that people who are on the trans feminine and trans masculine spectrums, makes it not a binary. Cissexual just means “someone who has no desire to change his or her physical sex.” “Cisgender” pretty much means the same thing but starts more arguments.
I don’t see any way to avoid talking about cis people in relation to trans people. That doesn’t imply there aren’t other kinds of people along the gender spectrum, but the other option is to privilege cis as normal and label trans as aberrant.
Lisa Harney
11 Aug 08 at 6:39 am
Well, I guess my problems with cis (and particulary cissexual) terms is that I feel a bit in the “cis” category. Particulary with the definion you gave here :
“‘Cissexual’ just means someone who has no desire to change his or her physical sex. ‘Cisgender’ pretty much means the same thing but starts more arguments.”
Which causes me problem, not because I absolutely don’t want to be labelled “cis”, but… it seems ok to be a cis man or a cis woman, but a cis shemale or a cis tranny, that sounds weird :p
“I don’t see any way to avoid talking about cis people in relation to trans people.”
Yeah, I understand that it’s a problem for which I have no magical solution,
(Yet.)
“I’m not sure I agree that transsexualism should only be used to refer to the modern west – it seems like that’s pretty close to saying that there’s no room for analysis of gender diversity in other cultures, especially in relation to what trans people do as opposed to what trans people are called.”
Well, I don’t think refraining from using “our” terms and using instead the local ones (when existing) forbids analysing gender diversity (at the contrary, I think it would be difficult to undestand some identities by trying to fit them into “trans” categories instead of seeing the link with cultural specificities, e.g. in religion and such).
Now if you have to use a “modern” term, transgender would bother me less than transsexualism because it is broader, even if I still think it is a bit problematic. It’s not really a question of using it only to modern west, but I think “trans” should be used only used to talk about people who define (or are defined by their society) by this term.
Elly
11 Aug 08 at 7:09 am
About the “trans is a modern/occidental concept”, my purpose is not to say that there weren’t any cases of people who considered the opoosite gender they were assigned or something but that the ter m itself is modern. To take back the comparison with homosexuality, there were people having same-sex relationship in many cultures, but I don’t think using the modern “gay” term very relevant.
I disagree, for political reasons. People need to know that the state of affairs we describe has been around since day one. GLBTQ people have been around since day one; are we progressing forward or going backward, is therefore the question. (Hence, “approval” is not the question, as the right wing frames it.)
I have hauled out gay people (St Anselm) in history, to argue against modern homophobia. As so many gay historians have written: the one thing that will shut up the fundies is to remind them that KING JAMES (as in the KING JAMES VERSION) was gay. Let them choke on that one awhile.
And yes, Joan of Arc. Cass, thanks for the background.
DaisyDeadhead
11 Aug 08 at 10:57 am
[...] it’s being ignored, but because I actually think it’s being used. To many people who think that gender is all a construction and therefore a transgender identity is somehow less legitimate than a cisgender identity, or who [...]
“Not In My Shower” : The Curvature
11 Aug 08 at 11:21 am
daisydeadhead said:
“But surgery is an emotionally laden thing… women have had hysterectomies, mastectomies, etc and find this alarming. When I read that transmen had mastectomies I got upset over it; my mother endured a lot of pain with hers. When some radfems use the term “mutilation”–I think sometimes they are speaking of their/our own feelings about how often these procedures were forced on women who did not want them.”
I just don’t see how this has anything to do with surgeries that many trans people do need. No one is forcing a chest reconstruction on me–in fact, there is a significant nine thousand dollar disincentive to getting this surgery. I also want to point out that chest masculinization/reconstuction is not the same as a radical mastectomy. Less tissue is removed, and for most of the men who have this procedure done, it’s a simple surgery with few complications and little downtime. And not to editorialize, but every trans man I’ve heard who can afford what we call “top surgery” is damn happy to get it.
If one has never worn 3 layers of heavy spandex constricting your chest and ribs all day every day for years (including summers)–I am not sure how seriously I would take arguments that surgery to remove serious gynecomastia (man boobs) from men is shocking mutilation.
jayinchicago
12 Aug 08 at 2:30 pm
Yeah, I do agree with Jay on this – those seem to be more about making trans-related surgeries about cis people who wouldn’t want to undergo them than about acknowledging those surgeries have nothing to do with them.
While I agree we should make it clear that trans and genderqueer people are quite diverse and everyone has their solutions that they can live with, I don’t think it’s our responsibility to assuage anyone’s insecurities about the idea of someone somewhere having surgery on his or her own body.
Lisa Harney
12 Aug 08 at 3:33 pm
It might be a stretch, but maybe it has something to do with the above referenced idea that “cis gender/sexual people aren’t really cis gender/sexual”–but I’m sorry, a female assigned person who lives in the world as a woman and more or less gets cissexual privilege, and who may or may not be totally female-identified and/or feminine–they aren’t a transsexual man (or transsexual woman, for that matter.) With very few exceptions, they just aren’t going to know what it’s like to be male identified and trying to live a cohesive life where clothing, and body contours matter in such a gendered way.
But then again, I would just prefer (in this example) instead of rushing to think about women who have had to have mastectomies for medical reasons, someone would think of male-assigned men with breast enlargement/gynecomastia. I really doubt there is much of a movement to get non-trans men with gynecomastia to stop mutilating their bodies.
jayinchicago
12 Aug 08 at 4:50 pm
I would like to see a lot of that kind of reframing. I think it’s needed. To stop describing men who transition as “women who become men” and to stop describing women who transition as “men who become women.” It’s oversimplifying and erases a lot of important information about our lives. It encourages people to think that simple phrase tells them everything they need to know about trans people.
And again, I totally agree with Jay. If you’re female, and you live in the world as a woman, you get cissexual privilege. If you’re male, and you live in the world as a man, you get cissexual privilege. It’s not a matter of identification, any more than white people need to identify as white to receive white privilege. It’s a matter of personal reality.
Lisa Harney
12 Aug 08 at 5:45 pm
Considering surgery, it may indeed be interesting to point out that mastectomy is not viewed the same way at all for (male) men and (female) women. On the other hand, I think is isn’t only a trans issue: if a woman is unhappy with her breast but still define as a woman, I think she should 1) have the right to do this 2) without having to be labelled “gender dysphoric” or “transsexual” as is the case in certain countries. Of course trans are more concerned by this, but I think we should point out the sexist aspect of saying “it is ok for men to have mastectomy, but not mammoplasty” and the opposite for women.
As for the cis/trans term (yes I go back to this), another thing that bothers me (which might explain the other aspect) is that it is meant in two senses :
1) separate women (and men) who are “male born” and the ones who are “female born”.
2) people who get some shit from being trans and some “privilege” for being cis.
The problem is that these two definitions don’t overlap. To take an example, a trans woman who has gone through surgery, changed ID, pass as a cis woman and whom nobody supects she’s trans probably suffers less from trans oppression than a cis woman who is frequently mistaken for a man because of her way to dress or her physical aspect.
So we’re using a quite “intrinsical” element of the person (basically, their original biological sex acording to the one they’re expected to have ) to define who suffer from oppression. Which is exactly what we reproach when it is done to men/women when it is the biological sex which is used to define the category.
I don’t know if I’m very clear, i’m a bit confused in my head too, but I think we should make a difference between definitions #1 and #2 (or just drop #1; after all, if somebody isn’t seen as trans and doesn’t claim that identity, why should this person be considered as trans?)
Elly
12 Aug 08 at 5:58 pm
Lurker and cis-woman here. Thank you for writing this. It was amazing.
Noir
12 Aug 08 at 6:34 pm
I actually know a lot about what you are talking about, considering my own life–I was highly gender nonconforming while I was attempting to live as a woman in my teens through my mid twenties, and I am a masculine, mid-transition man currently. There are tons of practical concerns I didn’t have to worry about back when my name, life, educational history, job history, credit history, social security gender, drivers license gender, birth certificate gender, etc etc etc were female and I was trying to live as a woman. I never had trouble getting a job, for instance, and I run into a lot of trouble now given how accessible our gender histories are due to things like background checks, and social security administration clearance. I may have faced some discrimination/harassment for my gender expression back as a “butch”, but I could always fall back on my birth sex assignment matching how I was trying to live. I never had a problem finding a doctor for treatment, and now I have to make a special trip to a LGBT clinic and hope any referrals I need won’t freak out that I am transsexual and on hormones.
I wouldn’t deny that the male privilege I receive now isn’t based on my much more male-normative appearance and behavior. it is. But the costs of “appearing” cissexual have been great as well, and since at any time my trans status could be revealed in employment (this has happened to me, and it wasn’t pretty), legal, personal, romantic, marital, and other senses–it is not the privilege of a cissexual person, who doesn’t have valid worries about the same things.
I have thought a lot about this. I do not mean to or wish to “rank oppressions”–I like to know exactly how oppressed/privileged I am, and I am very conscious of how male privilege has colored my life for the last couple of years. I think I need my own blog.
Thanks to everyone participating in this discussion.
jayinchicago
12 Aug 08 at 6:56 pm
This is an amazing post. I have studied some feminist theory, but honestly, arguing with anti-trans feminists just makes me tired. It’s good to read such a strong argument against the Sheila Jeffreys of the world.
As someone enlisted in the US Military, I’m always having to deal with the problems of transphobia from the Right. I can deal with it there, because, hey, it’s what conservatives do. When it comes from the Left, however, it just hurts.
CombatQueer
13 Aug 08 at 12:31 pm
The “but everyone has some level of gender dysphoria” people just make me so damn tired.
And this is a place where I find it critical to note that there’s cissexual and cisgendered and these are not the same damn thing. And also neither of them is the same as discomfort with narrowly contstructed gender roles.
I am cissexual: my body-sex does not disconcert, disorient, or upset me, even when I find it unpleasant.
I am genderqueer (not transgendered): my gender identity and presentation is fluid and not sex-specific (my standard joke is that I’m 50% male and 86.6% female, and if you get that you’re as big a nerd as I am).
My position on socially constructed gender conformist roles is that they’re pretty much all defective. Which doesn’t lead to any issues with my gender(s), but it can lead to friction between my gender and my society.
Dw3t-Hthr
13 Aug 08 at 11:57 pm
“And then, on the other, you have these poor deluded trannies, who actually think gender is real.”
as opposed to the poor deluded radical feminists, who actually think radical feminism is real.
nexyjo
14 Aug 08 at 9:34 am
The ignoring what transpeople have to say about being trans is one of the worst things for me. I can understand someone coming to a different conclusion, and in the long run accept that, but this is not that. I have made a slightly masochistic hobby of posting to anti-trans boards, just to see if a politely worded comment gets through. A good percentage of the time, it doesn’t.
This goes beyond the Ableist assumption that we are mentally ill and therefore don’t know what we are talking about, I think it is because of plain fear. TERF’s have constructed an understanding of gender and gender dynamics as that rests on the immutability of binary gender (“You were assigned a gender at birth, and nothing you can do or will experience changes that.”) and then accuse transpeople of supporting gender dichotomy.
polerin
28 Aug 08 at 12:11 pm
[...] Post from August 31, here. Denies being transphobic because she isn’t consciously “afraid” of trans women. Would never in a million years accept that argument from a homophobe critiquing her lesbianism in the same way. Claims her own ideas are rational, having suggested in her last post that transwomen who think they’re rational are reflecting male socialization! Actually says that a trans woman being read as trans is the same thing as an able-bodied person “passing” as disabled; suggests that we are men pretending to be women, gender-slumming, doing this all for a lark. Is convinced that her theories are more important than our experiences. [...]
Your ignorant transphobia is not okay « Skyborne
17 Sep 10 at 4:28 pm
I was about to go crazy when I first told my friends that I’m really genderqueer, and the VERY SAME people who splain to me about how gender isn’t real are also the same people who oh so conveniently use the same damn pronouns the cis world expects them to use and wear the same damn clothes the cis world expects them to wear and basically do all those things that shout “gender is real, and I have one!”, all while denying that gender even exists.
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who has to put up with this from people who should be allies.
The Nerd
22 Dec 10 at 9:50 pm
“trans women are continually posited as naïve in feminist arguments, as though we couldn’t have possibly read any feminist theory, understood it, and still find it problematic to describe our experience. Or heaven forbid, be a trans academic or writer like Susan Stryker, Jay Prosser, Viviane Namaste, Julia Serano or Sandy Stone”
This. Whenever I read anything by transphobes, they seem to frame whatever they’ve got to say about us from the angle of “poor trannies, they have no idea what they’re on about”. It doesn’t seem to matter to them that many of us have written books, articles and PhD theses on transsexualism – we can still never understand it as well as cis people can.
Joey
25 Aug 12 at 4:54 pm