I actually encountered this line of reasoning in Mary Daly's "Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism." I thought it was very strange and quite opposed to the feminist beliefs that I have so far encountered. When I was reading, I wrote it off to the age of the book. I am now quite disturbed to see it being used as modern anti-feminist propaganda.

Well, the piece didn't make it up. There is, sadly, a significant and often violent history of anti-trans sentiment and action among feminists in general and radical feminists (using the term in its technical meaning, not as a catch-all) in particular, justified with this line of reasoning. I have a close friend, a transwoman who has been politically active in feminism since the 1960s, prior to her transition, who experienced this firsthand. It doesn't make it right, though, and it doesn't mean that such feminists speak for the rest of us.

Many feminists believe that the behaviours and feelings which are considered typically masculine or typically feminine are purely socially conditioned.

I don't want to sound pissy but a lot of them are. And we've had this discussion a while back when there was a post about transgendered kids and the whole playing dress up, etc.

Wearing make-up and dresses aren't inherenitly female, there was a time when both men and women did that. The current concept in America of what's "masculine" and "feminine" didn't come into being until fairly recently, what with the shaving of the legs and under arms, etc.

I'm not transgendered but I consider myself a very masculine woman and often times it has to do with gender performance (again, wearing make-up, etc.)I don't like that stuff but I have no idea if it's because of something inante or what.

What gets me is that, hypothetically, if we had a society like that you saw in THX 1138 where there is no specific gender difference then what constitutes transgendered?

I know I probably sound ignorant but that's because I am:) I actually know very little about transgender issues and internally/mentally what that feels like. I just question that if there we didn't have gender performance how would that articulate itself.

"Many (not all) radical feminists (and here, I'm not talking about feminists who are radical; I'm referring to those subscribe to a specific set of beliefs and assumptions that are the hallmarks of radical feminism) indeed reject trans women's self-identification as women, but it is not because they view biology as destiny; rather, they challenge the notion of "true" gender identity, or the innate and core sense of being male or female, as deterministic."

From Emi Koyama's blog:
http://eminism.org/archive/2007/07/04-23.html

Emi doesn't agree with the position, but does offer a brief description of how it works as promoted by the Colorado College director of feminist and gender studies. I just found it interesting how closely this ties into your post.

hi. not ready to jump into this debate, but i just wanted to point our that julie bindell's not trans (she's a lesbian feminist; it's the article that quotes trans folks who say they made a mistake getting surgery).

also, i'm reading a great book on trans issues right now by trans woman julia serano called 'whipping girl: a transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of femininity'

i highly recommend.

oh, and Julie Bindell has her own take on this (sans random BBC commentary) in the Guardian: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/julie_bindel/2007/08/my_trans_mission.html

I too grappled with how to integrate an understanding of transexuality into my feminism, UltraMagnus. What I found most enlightening was talking at great length to the friend I mentioned above--she said something that struck me as quite significant. She said that talking about feeling as though one was a woman in a man's body was not, in her opinion, the technical literal truth, but was the best available way to express the feeling of being trans--that it is as close as our language allows in our cultural context, not a bedrock stone-set truth. Understanding that--understanding language as an imperfect medium for conveying a highly complex gender experience.

Understanding that helped me to understand that transexuality is not a threat to a feminist understanding of gender roles as socially conditioned. The patriarchy devotes an awful amount of time, energy, and money to socializing males into a masculine gender identity and females into a feminine one--but it is not all-powerful or foolproof. Given that many if not most gendered behaviors are socially constructed, it doesn't seem to me to be that far-fetched to accept that in a given number of cases, the way that the socialization process interacts with a person's inborn character is going to produce a gender-identification that is counter to what was intended.

By the way, I hate the Breasts not Bombs ad, not because I find it offensive, but because it gives me a splitting headache. I wonder if it might trigger an attack in someone with epilepsy? A friend of mine mentioned that flashing icons on LJ carried that risk.

I've always supported the right of people to get sex change operations more on libertarian grounds than feminist ones. From a feminist point of view I have often been uneasy when I listen to transgendered people talk about their desire to change sexes. One event in particular sticks in my mind where a M2F friend of mine talked rattled off a long list of negative masculine stereotypes in his reason to become a her. I remember thinking you don't have to cut your dick off to not be a jerk.

But on a more general level, I recall reading Mary Daly's "Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism" in college. I never found her argument persuasive. But it doesn't surprise me that some folks who claim the "radical feminist" label take issue with sex changes.

“it doesn't seem to me to be that far-fetched to accept that in a given number of cases, the way that the socialization process interacts with a person's inborn character is going to produce a gender-identification that is counter to what was intended.�
I kind of get what you’re saying… but I still can’t quite comprehend what makes someone a woman, other than physically being female (whether you’re born that way or became that way through surgery and hormone therapy). So let’s say I am a person with a penis but I like to wear makeup, dresses and high heels. Does that make me a woman? Or just a man who likes to wear makeup, high heels and dresses?

Oh, yes and I am quite ignorant on trans issues as well. I don't intend the above as an attack on any trans folks.

yeah... that breasts not bombs thing gives me a headache too.

I see two phenomena.

Limiting ourself to the example at hand, some people have a deeply private personal preference (as if she wants or abhors a sex change operation) and then they build a theory why this preference is vastly superior, and why people who make opposite decisions are bad, stupid or misguided.

Liberal feminist decry limits on choice and opportunities: should women work or stay at home? Should the girls be dressed in pink? Should people who feel that they have wrong sex undergo operations to change their sex? Personal! personal! personal! Not so liberal people (radical?) think that one should take sides.

The second phenomenon is that the same person between breakfast and lunch describes all the main evils in the world: Islamofascism, blogofascism, feminism, and after taking a lunch break, scribles what "a true feminist should prefer". Hey, true feminists are evil, why they should prefer what you prefer? And it continues with "what true friends of Black people should prefer", "what true friends of poor people should prefer" etc.

Occasionally it seems to create a cognitive dissonance so big that it backfires politically. GOP engaged in propaganda that we should "reform Social Security", in part because as it is "it is unfair to Blacks". Popularity of the idea in places like Alabama dropped like hell and the most conservative Republicans had to abandon it.

That's a cool response EG. I know that when I think of myself I think of myself in "masculine" terms and whenever I've had to dress up like a girl (most often when we go to straight dance clubs) I fell kinda like I'm in drag, especially if I'm wearing a dress. Oddly enough I love actual drag queens and their exaggerated femininity.

I was never the girl to want to play w/dolls and whenever my mother would take me shopping for clothes I'd always head to the boys section first because I thought their clothes looked better. All though high school I wore my dad's and my brother's hand me down pants and shirts (pants complete with belt). It was frustrating for my mother, (who would always pull the "it's my money" when she forced those flowery clothes on me) and for me 'cause I know she wanted a traditional girl. But she loves me and now she gets that I really just am not "feminine", though it really pleases her when she hears I bought something pink or I'm wearing a dress.

Even when I picture myself in my head I'm a lot more butch than I actually look, so seeing myself in a mirror is sometimes disappointing that I don't match to what's in my head. Though I did read a book by Joe Quirk called Sperm Are From Men, Eggs Are From Women and in that he detailed how sometimes in the womb female fetuses are doused with an extra bit of testosterone and male fetuses get that extra bit of estrogen. It doesn't make you gay or transgendered but it results in people like me, girls who like to rough house and skip the baby doll. (not saying that regular girls can't do this either, I just found that interesting 'cause it described me perfectly.)

You know, sojourner, I think that for a lot of us, or I should stop generalizing and say that for me, my image of transwomen was formed by mainstream media representations, until, of course, I actually met real transfolk. And that representation is a very femme-y one--high heels, hose, long hair, long nails, etc.

Why I unthinkingly trusted the msm's reprsentation of transwomen when I have known for years that their representation of gender was supremely fucked up is a mystery to me, but I did. And what I've found since is that like cisgendered women, transwomen occupy a number of different spaces on the butch-femme line, and that many transwomen are very butch--they do not like wearing heels, hose, etc. They like wearing jeans and combat boots and having short hair. Or some combination of the above. I think it's a common misconception that transwomen are all girly, not just because of the msm, but because for a very long time, in order to appease the gatekeepers--the psychiatrists who could sign off on gender reassignment surgery--they had to conform to those gatekeepers' views of gender identity, and those views were often retrograde to the extreme, especially a few years back.

The friend I mentioned above has told me horror stories about friends of hers who, for instance, wore jeans instead of a skirt to one of her weekly appointments with the shrink, and was told that she therefore clearly wasn't really committed to living as a woman, and therefore had to have another year of therapy before her shrink would reconsider signing off on the surgery. The fact that those of us born with vaginas often slouch around in jeans apparently didn't matter. And this was not an isolated incident.

I can't pretend to be have expert insight into what makes any of us have the gender identity we do; my feeling is that my identity as a woman is born of having to construct an identity on the subordinated side of the gender hierarchy. It's kind of easy to see how that happened for me; I'm not sure how it happens for transwomen, but until I learn how, I can accept that though their path to womanhood is somewhat different than mine, they get there just the same.

Does any of that help?

Thanks, UltraMagnus! I wish I could take credit for it--I'm just grateful that my friend was so patient with me.

Here's my problem with the whole "Radical Feminists Hate Tranny's" argument: Who is defining what Radical Feminism is, and isn't feminism 100% about equality of the genders, no matter what they are?
I am fairly sure it's none of anyone's goddamn business whether a woman is a Genny girl or a Tranny girl.
I personally don't think it's the job of the BBC to tell me what Radical Feminists believe. It's also not the place of anyone in this world to decide for anyone else what she should believe or do with her own damn body. So if a Tranny girl wants to go all the way, who is anyone to be the judge? It doesn't change the fact that she is on our side when it comes to gender issues. If you feel threatened somehow then it's your own damn problem. Leave the trans-population alone, already.

“my feeling is that my identity as a woman is born of having to construct an identity on the subordinated side of the gender hierarchy.�
Yeah, EG, it makes sense. And re the girly image of trans women, it’s definitely true for me and I have never met a trans woman in person.

Gwen,

Thanks for pointing that out. Mistake corrected.

First time poster here.

There's an excellent scholarly article about transsexual identity formation by Aaron Devor at the University of Victoria. Here's a link to a pdf of the article at Devor's website:

http://web.uvic.ca/~ahdevor/14StagesBLOCK.pdf

I like this article because it is empirical: it's based on years of interviews with transsexual individuals. Too often, those who theorize about transsexual identity formation draw their conclusions first and then look for evidence to back up their conclusions. (Of course, that happens everywhere, but when the theories are about actual people, the ramifications of biased theories tend to be more painful.)

Devor points out that, in identity formation, individuals tend to look for two things: witnessing and mirroring. Witnessing is when someone different than you recognizes your identity; mirroring is when someone who you recognize as having the same identity in turn affirms your identity.

When someone is first dealing with being transsexual, their anxiety at least in part derives from not being witnessed as the opposite gender to their birth sex and not being mirrored by those with the same gender identity.

Let me add my own spin to all of this, based on my own experience. I don't think any particular masculine or feminine behavior is intrinsic or biological, but I do think that, at the heart of gender identity, there is a natural inclination to more easily emulate the behaviors of one gender over the other. I think that this preferential ability to mirror (in a different sense than above) the behaviors of one particular gender is present at a very young age and very quickly causes young children to take on the stereotypical behavior of one gender or the other. I don't think gendered behavior is inherited, but I do think that the preference towards one gender is so strong in most people that it can take several generations of behavior modification to erase some stereotypical behaviors, so in some ways, these behaviors have some of the same properties as inherited ones.

When someone is transsexual, that person is getting mixed signals: their brain wants to reinforce the behaviors of one gender naturally, but they are being socialized to emulate another gender. Sometimes one of these two opposing forces wins out, sometime the two reach a stable balance, but for those who eventually transition, neither side wins out at first, and the two sides never really reach a stable truce. As that person becomes aware of both pressures, they begin to search out for others like themselves, and that's when Devor's fourteen steps start to kick in.

First time poster here.

There's an excellent scholarly article about transsexual identity formation by Aaron Devor at the University of Victoria. Here's a link to a pdf of the article at Devor's website:

http://web.uvic.ca/~ahdevor/14StagesBLOCK.pdf

I like this article because it is empirical: it's based on years of interviews with transsexual individuals. Too often, those who theorize about transsexual identity formation draw their conclusions first and then look for evidence to back up their conclusions. (Of course, that happens everywhere, but when the theories are about actual people, the ramifications of biased theories tend to be more painful.)

Devor points out that, in identity formation, individuals tend to look for two things: witnessing and mirroring. Witnessing is when someone different than you recognizes your identity; mirroring is when someone who you recognize as having the same identity in turn affirms your identity.

When someone is first dealing with being transsexual, their anxiety at least in part derives from not being witnessed as the opposite gender to their birth sex and not being mirrored by those with the same gender identity.

Let me add my own spin to all of this, based on my own experience. I don't think any particular masculine or feminine behavior is intrinsic or biological, but I do think that, at the heart of gender identity, there is a natural inclination to more easily emulate the behaviors of one gender over the other. I think that this preferential ability to mirror (in a different sense than above) the behaviors of one particular gender is present at a very young age and very quickly causes young children to take on the stereotypical behavior of one gender or the other. I don't think gendered behavior is inherited, but I do think that the preference towards one gender is so strong in most people that it can take several generations of behavior modification to erase some stereotypical behaviors, so in some ways, these behaviors have some of the same properties as inherited ones.

When someone is transsexual, that person is getting mixed signals: their brain wants to reinforce the behaviors of one gender naturally, but they are being socialized to emulate another gender. Sometimes one of these two opposing forces wins out, sometime the two reach a stable balance, but for those who eventually transition, neither side wins out at first, and the two sides never really reach a stable truce. As that person becomes aware of both pressures, they begin to search out for others like themselves, and that's when Devor's fourteen steps start to kick in.

Sorry about the double post.

I have been struggling with this issue myself for some time. On the one hand, i believe unequivocally in transgender legitimacy and transgender rights. On the other hand, I do believe that the vast majority, if not all, of gendered behaviors are at least partially socially constructed. And on the third hand, I have my own experience as a gender atypical person. Growing up I felt very much like a boy trapped in a girl's body, very much a tomboy, mostly guy friends, and all that. As I got older and discovered feminism, I became much more at ease with being a woman, but I still identify as a butch lesbian. Aside from the occasional women's t-shirt, it's all guy's clothes and mohawks for me. I consider myself masculine and my whole life rejected femininity as something that I was supposed to be, but I feel 100% woman. If feminism had never happened, though, if I had never seen that I can be whatever I want to be as a woman, I think I would probably have ended up a transman.

I can't profess to completely understand why I felt and feel the way I do, but I do know that there is a big difference between sex and gender. Sex is biological, and I don't mean the parts you were born with. Whatever part of the brain it is that tells you whether you are a man or a woman is immutable, and occasionally it doesn't match the plumbing, so to speak. I find that easy enough to understand. What I don't know is to what extent, if at all, that affects our gender, that is, how we present ourselves in the way we act and dress as either "masculine" or "feminine."

Where this stops being an interesting socio-biological question and starts being a social-political issue, I think, is with the somewhat recent phenomenon of butch lesbians transitioning to men en masse. There is no corresponding sex exodus in the gay male community, and this is leaving a lot of people with uneasy questions about to what extent some of these transitions have to do with latent sexism. Men are respected more, your masculine identity is supported instead of questioned, and society tells us implicitly oh so often how much better it is to be a man. My butch girlfriend exclaimed to me one day after she and her mom got into a big fight about the clothes she wears, "This is why people transition!" Of course, this isn't true for all FTMs, but it does make me wonder to what extent is might be for some.

For the record, I do know a few transpeople, but not well enough to profess deep insight into what they have and do go through.

You know, I always thought part of feminism was supporting the rights of women to be whatever they want to be whether that's a home maker or president or a man. Silly me.

Radical anti-racists have ideological reasons for opposing whiggers.

To them, the claim that someone can be 'born into the wrong race' is a deeply threatening concept.

Many anti-racists believe that the behaviors and feelings which are considered typically white or typically black are purely socially conditioned.

But if, as some in the whigger lobby believes, the tendency to feel black or white is something innate then it follows that racially stereotypical behaviors could well be 'natural' rather than as the result of social pressures and white oppression.

As an anti-racist, Julie Bindel therefore has a strong political motivation for her skepticism about Jamie Kennedy movies.

One of the reasons radical feminists often unfairly get the "transphobic" label is because they protest certain transwomen suppressing the right for biological females to have events in women-only spaces. Since certain women-only events have historically been co-opted by non-trans men until effectively quashed, they interpret this as an offront on women's autonomy and right to set limits. From what I understand, the same thing is happening in the queer community by marginalizing lesbian identities in favor of being lost in a broader queer-trans label. I am a new radical feminist and spoiled by heteronormativity, so please correct me if I'm misstating this issue.

I think that some semblance of gender identity can be inborn, but the social constructions surrounding them are sometimes fetishized by transwomen whose public well-being is hinged upon "passing" for female, hence the preoccupation with patriarchal lies about what women are. That preoccupation with oppressive constructions is what so many feminists find distasteful. Anyone remember an article by...Faludi, I think it was?...explaining how the The Citadel fostered a misogynist, homophobic culture, but ironically, the cadets would date transvestites and transwomen because they happened to fulfill this exaggerated misogynist construct of femininity propagated by military culture.

READ JULIA SERANO'S Whipping Girl!

This cannot be said enough. At this point it should be essential reading for anybody who claims to be a feminist, to at least have some grasp where transwomen are really coming from.

This is exactly the problem she has with several second wave feminist. She calls them trans-misogynistic. Its a pretty accurate description when you read stuff like this. Somebody was wondering the distinguishing characteristic between third wave feminists and second wave feminist (and there are VERY distinguishing characteristics if you are a transwoman). Well this woman from the BBC is an very typical of what many second wave feminist thought of transpeople, especially transwomen. Third wave feminist by in large while not have a complete understanding of transsexuality and transgender individuals, by in large grasp the concept that those of us who are cursed with these issues have more complex situations than just societal issues. They at least accept transsexuals for their given gender identity. Our societal issues largerly are based on the fact we often are forced into repressive situations by those who either do not believe us, threaten us, or our own fears. Our societal issue comes from the fact there is so much pushing us not to transition, when the reality is its the only way to actually live for us. There is something much deeper. (Just to note most major feminist blogs: Feministing, Salon's Broadsheet, Pandagon, and especially I blame the patrairchy, fall well within the third wave paradigm.)

There is still a reluctance by many transwomen to call themselves feminist largely because of some of the writing during the early 1980's against transwomen by second wave "feminist", and because of the controversy surrounding the michigan womyn's festival and the controversy over the "womens only spaces issue". The reality is this underlies the problems third wave feminist had against second wave feminist, and why there was and still is a bit of a backlash within the feminist community from third wave feminists who recognize that trans people are easily bear the brunt of societies gender issues, and a few remaining second wave "feminists" who seem to have major issues with transsexuals and often are transphobic and transmisogynistic.

While quite a bit of gender expression is socialized, gender identity is not. I should know, I am currently transitioning myself. I had to struggle with this conundrum for years. It is very difficult for many people to wrap their heads around, and to say that transsexual people do not struggle with this issue is beyond reason. But eventually we have to transition. The struggle and the stress gets to be that much and our gender identity wins out.

Gender expression is not why I am transitioning. No transsexual transitions for this reason. The problems go much deeper than that.

Also please don't use the word tranny.

The mainstream media is very bad about their portrayal's of transwomen in a particular light (it has been getting better in the US recently). Once again, read Serano. Or at least read her Bitch Magazine article on the subject which is in the anthology.

Also to say that there is a fetishized adherance to social constructs is completely offbase, and honestly, totally transphobic and transmisogynistic. Its like you never met a transwomen your entire life. Passing, and the concept of such, is largely an issue of SAFETY. Transwomen, by in large are one of the largest targeted groups for hate crimes in this country. Ask any transwoman why passing is really important...they will say above all its a safety issue. By in large transwomen do not all fall into the construct of being overly femme. There is an almost complete distaste with the fact there are men who fetishism us for the very perception you are stating with the military academy. We deeply despise the stereotypes that you seem clearly mindwashed with yourself. Transwoman, myself included, are by in large not like that.

Also these radical "feminists" (in qoutes because they are anything BUT) are RIGHTFULLY called transphobic. And you are dead wrong on this issue. This is essentially about the fact that transwomen, by in large are the most marginalized group, they are maginalized by the mainstream society and subject to outright and legal discrimination, they are marginalized by the exlusionary practices of the queer and lesbian community, and they are marginalized by the medical establishment we are so dependant upon just to become comfortable in our own bodies.

No offense Seamus, you are coming off as extremely transphobic, largely because you are reflecting a major problem with second wave feminism. This is an issue about hypocrisies by those who claim to be feminist. Those who demand equal rights and representation, at the same time deny rights to women just because of the genitals they were born with, and because they were cursed with transsexuality or intersex conditions. Gender is more than that, and real feminism, not this second wave "radical" feminism (which in reality is bigotry and its own form of misogyny when it displays this aspect), is about equal rights for all women. That is the differance between the third wave that respects transwomen, as women, and the second wave which still obviously is somehow attached to the concepts of birth sex matters more than anything else.

Its pretty obvious you are pretty new this issue. I suggest you read Serano before you post a single thing more on any trans issue. That is if you have an open mind, because as it stands, you are coming off as a bigot and extremely transphobic.

The way that we are exposed to the idea of transgendered individuals in media, magazines, and documentaries does create some conflicts within a modern feminist who believes that gender (not sex) is a socially constructed entity and that the social stereotypes associated with one pair of genitals or another does not define the sex or the individual.

I am a firm believer that gender is a social construction and a perception, not biologically determined.

As such, it is hard for me to grapple with the idea of children receiving hormonal suppression because they displayed behavior or preferences towards what society insists should be reserved for the opposite genitalia.

I am not a transgendered individual and so am completely ignorant to the very personal and intimate decisions that go on. I also feel that an informed adult should be free to choose surgery or whatever other means necessary to make them feel comfortable with themselves and their identities. That is really none of my business, and I support anyone's right to choose their own lifestyle.

However, when faced with arguments that playing dress-up, wearing gendered clothing or playing with gendered toys means that children should be given medically oppressive hormonal therapy because we sure wouldn't want a little boy to enjoy wearing dresses and makeup and playing with dolls SEEMS very counterfeminist.

We go on and on about how sick it is that children are given such gendered toys, how people and parents treat children of the different sexes vastly differently (encouraging little girls to cry, etc) and how these all tie into the social ideas of sex and gender which is very limiting.

I wouldn't call someone a bigot or transphobic for not understanding or sincerely feeling that gender is a social issue - not a biological one.

I support anyones right to dress or act however they choose regardless of what genitals they have or want or were born with. I support a transgendered woman's right to be legally recognized as a woman.

I still think that gender is a social construct and that it would be healthier to encourage children to pursue the desires and interests and shallow decisions such as what sort of pants to wear regardless of their genitals, instead of suppressing their hormones and bodies and telling them that their penis or breasts define them and should be hidden so that others will accept their lives.

OK, here's the real problem: the dichotomy of male and female.

Regardless of what things are natural and what things are socially constructed, the fact is, that two categories aren't enough to express our diverse human sexuality and gender issues.

Cheers to that, Elaine.

There's a lot of conflation going on in Bindel's article, and some here in comments, between "gender expression" (masculine or feminine traits or behaviors, socially constructed) and "gender identity" (which is what trans people report as a persistent sense that they're not in the right body / gender). Those things aren't necessarily related at all, and I think there are a lot of mistakes that happen as a result. Take the case of little kids -- it would be horrifying if kids were railroaded into hormonal transition just on the basis of gender expression, but I don't think that's what's happening in most of these cases. If you pay close attention to the stories of trans kids (and I've met some of them) they are pretty clear about their gender identity too -- and as is common for a lot of kids, they have gender expressions that match their identity, and may actually flow from it.Also, trans kids and teens don't hide their body parts just because adults tell them to, believe me.

If you get this, it's a lot easier to see how a social constructionist view of gender is not incompatible at all with making sense out of how and why trans people exist and transition. I'm trans, and I also believe that gender is socially constructed. That doesn't change the fact that I have a subconscious beacon that tells me I feel female. It's always hard to describe what that means, but no, it definitely doesn't mean "I want to put on pink dresses" or "I cry during chick flicks" or any bullshit like that.

What gets me is that, hypothetically, if we had a society like that you saw in THX 1138 where there is no specific gender difference then what constitutes transgendered?

This is a good question that illustrates the point nicely. You might be surprised that this is actually a pretty common mental exercise for trans people to do when trying to figure out how/when/whether to transition. It's meant to be a way of trying to imagine what feelings about our bodies and expression might be in a society that doesn't have all the pressures and oppressions around gender that ours does. Of course, it's kind of impossible to literally or exactly imagine how our selves would be constituted, how we would have grown up in the absence of gender. But I, and many other trans people, still have a strong conviction that we would at least need to change the way we live in our bodies, at the very least -- even if there were NO outside messages or pressures, even if I imagine myself as the only person in the universe, etc. It's kind of hard to imagine or explain.

I could expound for hours on trans-ness, identity politics and what it all really means, at least in my mind, but I won't. Suffice it to say, f Julie Bindel for trying to tell me what to do with my body.

Having agency over your own body and health should be the case for everyone, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be on the agenda for some people.

I think that the majority of feminine and masculine characteristics are socially conditioned. I know someone who is trans who said that he wouldn't have to transition if it wasn't for social stereotypes.

The problem is that most people think there are two categories to sexuality and gender: male and female. Sexuality, however, can't be put into categories and some people blur those lines. The reason they feel they must transition is because society does not allow them to express their gender the way they want to in the body that they were born.

Actually, before I became a feminist, I WAS indeed familiar with only one male who identified as female, and he did fetishize my body more than any misogynist I've encountered in my personal life. He was my boss, and I was too young and dumb to do anything about it. His actions represent a MINORITY of transwomen I'm sure, but that is the reason not all biological women want it to be mandatory for transwomen to be admitted into women's spaces--it's for the same reasons they want to be free of MEN sometimes. Not all men contributed to negative experiences for women, so should they be mandatorily given the right to hang out in a battered women's shelter? Should lesbians be forced to let me into cordoned-off events because my experience of growing up as a girl trump their experience of growing up as lesbian girls? Give me a break.

The patriarchy devotes an awful amount of time, energy, and money to socializing males into a masculine gender identity and females into a feminine one--but it is not all-powerful or foolproof. Given that many if not most gendered behaviors are socially constructed, it doesn't seem to me to be that far-fetched to accept that in a given number of cases, the way that the socialization process interacts with a person's inborn character is going to produce a gender-identification that is counter to what was intended.

It's important to distinguish — as so much of the often-sloppy work on the subject does not — between gender identity and gender expression, a distinction that equates more or less to that between the language faculty (and the attendant principles and parameters) and the way in which language is used.

Gendered behaviour is most certainly the product of socialisation; hence the significant cultural differences in what constitutes "masculine" and "feminine" dress and behaviour. Gender identity, on the other hand, shows remarkable resistance to even extreme social pressure.

It's interesting that these things are conflated even years after the only study that ever purported to prove that gender identity was a product of socialisation (John Money's notorious John/Joan study) was demonstrated to be a complete fabrication. The history of the genital mutilation and forced feminisation of intersexed infants demonstrates quite well how one's gender identity — the consciousness of oneself as male, female, or something else — cannot be broken even when everyone in one's life from early infancy on tells one differently.

Much of the fear of — and resistance to serious research on — TS/TG/IS people in some quarters seems to stem from the tendency to conflate these two very different things.

P.S. I personally would be happiest attending an inclusive women's event--straight, trans, gay, bi, feminist, "equalist," etc.--my anecdotal experience aside. I was just using that example to illustrate my point that other biological women should have the right to set any limits they want, just as transwomen should be able to have exclusive spaces.

This is an issue I have been struggling with lately, ever since a coworker revealed himself to be transgendered (I refer to him as he because he identifies as male until he gets his surgery, which is scheduled for December, at which point he will identify as she). I have always supported people's rights to identify with whatever gender they like even though I too believe that most facets of gender are socially constructed. But then I met this person and discovered he was a complete piece of shit. My hate for him is boundless because he wants to be a woman and yet is not a feminist. He seems to think that being female means being pretty, weak and infantile. He conforms to every stereotype of a Barbiesque girl and thinks everyone should be skinny and "perfect". He refuses to do any manual labour because that's for boys. He has stated that he wants to be a woman because he wants a sugar daddy to take care of him. He is egotistical, arrogant, condescending and constantly insults everyone around him, calling us fat and so on. Basically he is just an all-around horrible person to be around. Ever since I started working with him and getting to know him my opinion of transgendered people has gone down. And I have to consciously remind myself that most transgendered people aren't like him. I'm sure most of them are great people. One bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch. So in all sincerity I thank all of you who are transgendered and have posted here to share your stories. I truly needed to be reminded that he is an exception and not all transgendered people are jerks.

Though this did take me aback, it shouldn't have surprised me considering how race, gender, and class can create divergent states of oppressed and oppressor within the same person.

Speaking of Mary Daly's "Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, how popular is this book within Gender Studies departments these days?

I want to point out that there is a huge difference between "telling people what to do with their own bodies" vs. critiquing and analyzing all women's choices in a social context. For instance, I would never dream of legislating against or policing any type of freely chosen body modification or medical procedure. At the same time, I think it is fair to point out that no choices are politically neutral. That isn't transphobic or housewife-phobic or porn-consumer-phobic or breast-implant-phobic or anything hypocritical or judgemental. But let's not kid ourselves. The personal is political.

I want to point out that there is a huge difference between "telling people what to do with their own bodies" vs. critiquing and analyzing all women's choices in a social context. For instance, I would never dream of legislating against or policing any type of freely chosen body modification or medical procedure. At the same time, I think it is fair to point out that no choices are politically neutral. That isn't transphobic or housewife-phobic or porn-consumer-phobic or breast-implant-phobic or anything hypocritical or judgemental. But let's not kid ourselves. The personal is political.

My hate for him is boundless because he wants to be a woman and yet is not a feminist. He seems to think that being female means being pretty, weak and infantile. He conforms to every stereotype of a Barbiesque girl and thinks everyone should be skinny and "perfect". He refuses to do any manual labour because that's for boys. He has stated that he wants to be a woman because he wants a sugar daddy to take care of him. He is egotistical, arrogant, condescending and constantly insults everyone around him, calling us fat and so on.

Without presuming to know your coworker better than you do, there are a couple of things I'd like to point out:

First of all, being trans is not a matter of "wanting to be". It's more a matter of "already being and wanting to express it externally". There's an important difference there.

For another thing, I wouldn't write your coworker off just yet. Perceptions and attitudes often change dramatically in the process of transition. A big part of transition is jettisoning the attitudes and behaviours that one learned as a way of passing as a man (in this case). Stereotyped, unnuanced, and sometimes even condescending attitudes about women (or men, as the case may be) are not entirely uncommon in pre-transition transpeople both as part of the need to pass as the gender they're perceived to be and due to the fact that, despite their identity, they have not yet had an opportunity to experience what lifeis like as a person of the gender to which they are transitioning. Your coworker seems, at least for the moment, to be an asshole, but please keep in mind that all sorts of things (both expected and totally unexpected) can change in the course of transition. It may not happen with this particular person, but it isn't unusual to emerge from transition with a radically different personality.

I certainly hope he changes Elise, but I somehow doubt it. Did I mention he's also racist?

As a trans woman, I want to know why Julie Bindel and those of her ilk believe GRS is mutilation. There are numerous hoops trans-folk have to jump through before they even get to see the waiting room of a surgeon's clinic. I understand that doctors are typically apprehensive about removing "healthy tissue" from the body, but if consent has been given by the patient, then it's not mutilation. Confer with the barbaric practice of female circumcision. That is also the removal of "healthy tissue" for not medical, but social reasons. And do you think those baby girls have any say in what is done to their bodies? That is mutilation.

EG's comment:

The friend I mentioned above has told me horror stories about friends of hers who, for instance, wore jeans instead of a skirt to one of her weekly appointments with the shrink, and was told that she therefore clearly wasn't really committed to living as a woman, and therefore had to have another year of therapy before her shrink would reconsider signing off on the surgery. The fact that those of us born with vaginas often slouch around in jeans apparently didn't matter. And this was not an isolated incident.

When I got started on this sex change roller coaster, I did what probably a lot of other trans women did: I over-compensated. I jumped into the deep end of femme even though I knew deep down in my gut that I wasn't femme. But since it was supposedly 'required' in order to get the precious estrogen, I played along. I even started believing that I was really a femme despite the fact that when I was a child, I was a tomboy in a boy's body.

My transition has never been about expressing myself as 'feminine' or 'masculine.' It's been about the simple fact that I need my shell to be female. The more my body changed over time, the less I relied on social gender cues to tell people I'm female. My body can do the talking, which is as it should be.

ellejohara

I certainly hope he changes Elise, but I somehow doubt it. Did I mention he's also racist?

That's really depressing. I hope you get to meet some more trans people so your boss is not the only example. I mean Elise is right for some cases, but you know what else is true? Some people are just huge jerks with really bigoted ideas. Unfortunately found across all genders. It's always especially disheartening to hear about trans people who have really reactionary or sexist notions about gender, because I feel like there is a natural and perhaps unavoidable tendency to connect those two things about them together: they're a transgender person, and boy do they have messed up views on gender. And like you said, once you make that connection it starts to seem logical that one has to do with the other, and maybe that most trans women are sexist barbie-doll emulators, which is so far from the truth. It would be as if someone from another planet came to earth and touched down at a beauty pageant in Akron, and got an impression of what American women are like based on that -- and it's altogether too common that with trans people you encounter a really small sample size, since there aren't a whole lot of us.

I just wanted to comment, I do think that Mary Daly is brilliant, and Gyn/Ecology was completely life changing for me...it altered my whole understanding in a way that was quite empowering.

I think the issue in the article is that it should have reiterated "separatist radical feminism" or "some strands of radical feminism". That wouldn't have bothered me, just bc radical feminists aren't as common, does not mean they don't exist, and even if they're not as "inclusive" as many feminist movements today, it doesn't mean they're not feminists. They just work on different ideologies is all.
That's what's so cool about feminism--is that there are so many types. It's actually really beautiful and keeps the movement in constant flux.

I just wanted to comment, I do think that Mary Daly is brilliant, and Gyn/Ecology was completely life changing for me...it altered my whole understanding in a way that was quite empowering.

I think the issue in the article is that it should have reiterated "separatist radical feminism" or "some strands of radical feminism". That wouldn't have bothered me, just bc radical feminists aren't as common, does not mean they don't exist, and even if they're not as "inclusive" as many feminist movements today, it doesn't mean they're not feminists. They just work on different ideologies is all.
That's what's so cool about feminism--is that there are so many types. It's actually really beautiful and keeps the movement in constant flux.

Niquey, it sounds like you've met transperson who is a racist, sexist asshole. But hey, how many cisgendered women have I met who are racist, sexist assholes? Far too many, unfortunately. Being a woman, whether cis or trans, is no guarantee of decent personhood.

Seamus, it's not just about Michigan festival. There's a history, and it's a history that includes self-identified Radical Feminists (capital R) claiming that transwomen couldn't be part of the feminist groups they were part of; of RF lesbian affinity and political groups ostracizing lesbians who fell in love with transwomen as actually, secretly being straight; of marginalizing and rejecting transwomen's voices and experiences as not being "really" about women. It went hand-in-hand with feminism's internecine wars about S&M and other such things.

Kate, the issue of providing hormones to children and teenagers is not really the same issue. I am genuinely torn about how best to address the situation of a child who firmly, as a bedrock, belives that his/her gender identity is at odds with his/her body. But it is considerably more complicated than "that boy likes to play with dolls--medicate him!" There is a significant difference between a boy who likes to play with dolls and a boy who, despite all kinds of external social pressure, consistently and strongly believes himself to be a girl. Such a child might get hormone therapy in a supportive family that felt that that was the right path--but it is far more likely that like many transpeople, he would experience severe censure, punishment, and abuse from his family.

How to work best with gender-dysmorphic children is a separate issue from whether or not we as feminists accept and support transadults, however.

But hey, how many cisgendered women have I met who are racist, sexist assholes? Far too many, unfortunately. Being a woman, whether cis or trans, is no guarantee of decent personhood.

You just gave me the weirdest mental image of Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly reciting "Ain't I a woman".

I so wish I didn't have to share a species with them, let alone a gender! They give me contact shame.

One of the reasons radical feminists often unfairly get the "transphobic" label is because they protest certain transwomen suppressing the right for biological females to have events in women-only spaces. Since certain women-only events have historically been co-opted by non-trans men until effectively quashed, they interpret this as an offront on women's autonomy and right to set limits.

The problem with this construction, Seamus, is that it means that the RFs are implicitly defining transwomen as not being women. It is only if one does not understand or respect tranwomen's identity as women that once could justify excluding them from women-only spaces. Men do indeed have a history of destroying and commandeering women's groups and activities--but transwomen do not, and transwomen are not men, and should not be treated as such. I can see the benefit in cisgendered women having seminars and suchlike wherein they can talk about their experiences, in the same way I can see the benefit in men having seminars and suchlike wherein they can talk about their experiences vis-a-vis gender, but when we're talking about gender hierarchies, it is not cisgendered women who are subordinated to transwomen.

Firstly, I wanted to thank the women who have shared their experiences with transitioning. In another post, we talked about how difficult it is to make a man understand the magnitude of motherhood/pregnancy, etc., because they will never experience it. I imagine it is equally difficult to put into words what it is to be a transgendered person.

While I believe that gender expression is entirely a social construct, I don't believe that identity necessarily is. Demanding that trans women justify their identity to other people is just as insulting as everything else our culture demands women justify about themselves and their choices. I know that I am a woman, not because I like my hair long and enjoy makeup and skirts, but because I feel like a woman. There are many women who feel like women who do not indentify with female gender constructs, and for me, this has never been a difficult concept.

Lastly, I absolutely agree that gender, sexuality, and all other aspects of human expression fall along a continuum. I have a friend who is in a heterosexual marriage, but identifies herself as a dyke. I have had sexual/romantic feelings towards other women before, but I identify as a heterosexual woman. There's no reason that anyone has to identify as a straight woman, gay woman, straight man, gay man. There is so much more, it's so fluid, and very complex. At least, that's how I feel about it.

The problem with this construction, Seamus, is that it means that the RFs are implicitly defining transwomen as not being women. It is only if one does not understand or respect tranwomen's identity as women that once could justify excluding them from women-only spaces.

I'd been trying to put into words what was wrong with that notion for hours now, and you just hit it spot on. If, for example, it were called the Michigan Exclusionary Transphobic Womyn's Music Festival, I wouldn't have any objection to them limiting themselves to cisgendered women ("biological" women, judging from the direction the research has been going in for years now, is a misnomer-by-implication). By calling groups that exclude non-cisgendered women "women's" groups (or whatever misspelling that happens to be chosen by people who mistakenly believe that misunderstanding etymology is a radical act), they at the very least imply that only cisgendered women are women.

I should follow up by saying that when one group of people--in this case RFs--sets themselves up as arbiters over womanhood and decides that they have the right to say that transwomen aren't women, by, say, advocating the exclusion of transwomen from women-only spaces, then the label "transphobic" is not, in my opinion, being applied unfairly. It is perfectly accurate.

(or whatever misspelling that happens to be chosen by people who mistakenly believe that misunderstanding etymology is a radical act)

Elise, will you marry me? A feminist and a grammar/spelling snob is my dream!

What's annoying is that Julie Bindel does lots of valuable work with victims of domestic abuse which tends to get overlooked, I was at the debate that the BBC article was about and that wasn't mentioned, prefering to cast her pretty much as a Guardian columnist, where she is mainly known for those transsexual attack articles. You can hear it here until next wednesday, though it's not very good, the program seems designed to encourage incoherence and soft-pedals the fact that there was a clear 80-20 split against Bindel in the room after she gave her talk.

It's also annoying that the BBC piece falls into the trap of elevating the minority of cases where the process has failed the persons transitioning over the majority of cases where transmen and women report satisfaction.

Elise, will you marry me? A feminist and a grammar/spelling snob is my dream!

Given the way my love life has been going for the past year (with a certain notable exception recently), you should be careful what you ask for. :)

I just get so sick of people who can't be bothered to do anything really radical, so instead they randomly misspell words. Woman did not derive from man, history comes from a language where his is suus, and human is about as much to do with man as Panamanian. Dousing Samuel Alito in menstrual blood and amniotic fluid is a radical act; this misspelling crap is about as radical as a "mean people suck" bumper sticker.

Another thing: what's especially absurd about some feminists refusing to recognise the experiences of transwomen is that there is a lot that can be learnt from those experiences. Who better to tell you what male privilege is than someone who's lived both with and without it? You don't know what you've got till it's gone, and all that.

I'm very tired and checked back in on a whim, so I'll shoot off a response as best I can before I hit the sack.

I'm really surprised so many feminists are facilitating this construction of a strawradfem. I DO recognize the experiences of transwomen. I DO think they are valuable. I would NOT trade the privilege of my gender identity matching my body for a lifetime of male privilege with gender dysphoria (even though I don't necessarily think that puts non-transwomen "ahead" in general). And I stated earlier that the fetishization of patriarchal feminine constructs was due to a survival mechanism society unfairly saddles transwomen with in the first place (needing to "pass"), so your response to that was reaffirming what I already said. I also recognize that not all transwomen compensate by exaggerating constructs, yes.

If I were ever to attend a feminist or women's space event (BTW, "women's space," by default, does not mean transwomen are automatically excluded, as some were intimating. The point is whether or not biological females ALSO have the right to create a space for biological females only, so don't put words into my mouth). If you have any doubts about my personal beliefs (even though you automatically assumed I was a bigot, just for sharing an anectdote to explain why there are indeed differences that matter, even though I recognize your self-identification as a woman), I would attend the most diverse women's event if I ever participated in one. If it becomes about which-oppressed-group-has-it-the-worst, I don't doubt that being a transwoman is horrendous in a society like this, but your childhood experiences were not mine, my birth control concerns and all the baggage that fucking uterus has brought me my entire life are not the same as your experiences, you did not grow up without male privilege, etc. I'd be comfortable bonding with any feminist at any event, but women who want solidarity with other women who experienced the aforementioned issues should also hold events among themselves if they so desire. If Feminists Who Have Experienced Abortions want to exclude me because I never got told I was going to hell for killing daddy's heir, that's fine with me.

And transpersons HAVE muscled their way in before, which you said wasn't the case.

You make the point that it must be bigotry because transpeople aren't oppressing women in a patriarchal society, but having the right to set limits, having the right to autonomy for just one goddamn time in women's lives, is what it's about--not where a person is on the hierarchy. For example, Native Americans are still in a worse position than blacks, and yet, both groups should have the right to their own space, the right to have their own issues focused on exclusively, because although many events of discrimination are shared, their experiences are very different. The difference, of course, is that the title would have to be qualified so that the event wasn't coming off like "REAL Women Only Event," because that's what one commentor said it was (deliberately obnoxious statement). It's not that they don't think you're "real" women, but that there are differences that can be drawn among subsets of any group looking for solidarity with folks with particular common experiences--some of which, you did not share.

Whether or not some insane minority of bigots from the 2nd wave take advantage of events with specially defined space is irrelevant--they're pathetic hypocrites, and that's not the underlying reason why the space exists, even if they're exploiting it. I'm sure the majority of women who'd attend Hypothetical Space would go to all kinds of inclusive events as well.

Seamus you're a bigot whatever sugar you put on it.

What it comes down to is that you and those behind Michigan and "LesFest" belive that transwomen are not real women - that only "womyn born womyn" as you put it are genuine women.

Sugarcoating bigotry and evil doesn't make it any less evil.

For example, Native Americans are still in a worse position than blacks, and yet, both groups should have the right to their own space, the right to have their own issues focused on exclusively, because although many events of discrimination are shared, their experiences are very different.

You would have something approaching a point if you used an example such as an "African American event" that only allowed dark-/light-skinned people in, or a "Native American event" that allowed everybody but Yaquis in. However, calling something a "women's" event and then only allowing some women in is quite different from having an "African American event" and not letting Native AMericans in.

It's not that they don't think you're "real" women, but that there are differences that can be drawn among subsets of any group looking for solidarity with folks with particular common experiences--some of which, you did not share.

Why do you assume that one has to be a member of a group in order to oppose bigotry against it?

MTF and FTM not mind-blowing enough? How about folks who identify as neither man nor woman? I'm curious to know other's reactions to such a phenomenon.

Growing up, I was a pretty happy kid. There was very little gender conditioning (except for the dresses). My mom has even said that if I was a boy who wanted to play with dolls, she would have let me. Then I hit puberty. I resented every last bit of it. I hated the lumps of useless tissue that were taking over my chest; I hated dealing with menstruation and the symptoms that came with it for two weeks out of each month. Then there was the social pressure to act “like a girl.� I was diagnosed with chronic depression and anxiety when I entered high school. I strongly believe that my struggle with gender identity was indeed part of what triggered it.

Until this year, my understanding of transgenderism was cloudy at best. I’ve learned a lot about whom and what I am. The Native Americans have third and fourth genders to accommodate transgendered individuals. They call them Two-Spirit because they were said to have been blessed with the spirit of a man and a woman. I personally find this explanation more satisfying than “man trapped in woman’s body� or vice-versa. However, I have very little Native blood, so I will leave their cultural terms respectfully be. Besides, being transgendered in a Native American culture is a much different experience from being transgendered in Caucasian culture. I just think our culture could stand to learn from theirs.

Within the transgender label exists a group of people commonly called androgynes. My body is distinctly female, but my gender identity is between “man� and “woman.� I tend to dress in an androgynous fashion as well. Mirroring and witnessing were mentioned earlier. I can relate, except that there’s few people to mirror and even fewer that would recognize me for what I am. Strangers will ask what gender I am and they only give me two choices. It can be maddening. I’ve often wondered why I couldn’t just be a butch lesbian, but it really isn’t that simple.

I'm on birth control at the moment so I don't have a period, but what I'd really like is to have my uterus removed. I can't because I'm white, middle-class, and under 30. Tough shit for me. I'll probably have better luck at getting my breasts removed. Getting insurance to cover it will be the hard part. I may well end up paying for it on my own.

Would I be welcome at a women-only group? I was born and socialized as a girl and if I said nothing, no one would know about my true gender-identity. I could understand if a male-born androgyne was not admitted, but what about a female-born androgyne?

However, calling something a "women's" event and then only allowing some women in is quite different from having an "African American event" and not letting Native AMericans in.

Actually, it's a lot more like what an acquaintance of mine has experienced--being told that she's not Native American enough to be part of their group, and not Jewish enough to be part of the Jewish women's group she tried to join, and so on.

It's not that they don't think you're "real" women, but that there are differences that can be drawn among subsets of any group looking for solidarity with folks with particular common experiences--some of which, you did not share.

But when one group has considerably more cultural capital and privilege than the group they're excluding--and cisgendered women do--exclusionary meetings take on a distinctly less pleasant character. I would not be in favor of a straight-women-only space, and I'm not in favor of a ciswomen-only space.

“Many feminists believe that the behaviours and feelings which are considered typically masculine or typically feminine are purely socially conditioned.�

I am curious, as I seriously don’t know, would this be characterized as the standard feminist position as to gender roles. Are there any prominent feminists that would characterize gender roles as part socially conditioned and part biological. I always considered this somewhat an open question. None of the research I have seen for either position has seemed very persuasive.

Also, can someone define patriarchy for me. I’ve never really studied the issue and am curious how feminist theory defines patriarchy. Is it a historical and cultural force or more based on the behavior of individuals. Also, what methodology is most recommended for countering patriarchy in the culture.

I’m not trying to argue or bait anyone here, I just have really never thought about any of these issues until reading this site and several others recently.

Ok, I am transgendered, which is a pretty broad term, so more specifically, I am a post-operative ts, just so you know where I'm coming from. I haven't read all the comments yet, but thought I would offer my opinion.

Are there transgendered women who fetishize femininity? Yes, that can't be denied. Are there cisgendered women that fetishize femininity? Absolutely. Are there feminist transgendered women? You better believe it. Saying "transgendered people are like x" is no more legitimate than saying "Islamists are like y" or "black people are like z".

I don't know how transgendered people think, or their reasons for wanting surgery or others not wanting surgery. I can only speak for myself, and even then, I can't really formulate my reasons into an unassailable, completely internally consistent argument. So, here's why I did it:

Because I wanted to. And I don't regret it. And it makes me feel better about myself. And it makes me feel better in how I relate to others.

The surgery didn't change anything outside of one little physical change that very few people will ever see. But I know, and I did it for me.

Are radical feminists transphobic? Some of them are. But I think it's just that radical feminists use radical feminists theories as they understand them to justify their transphobia. Just like religious people use religious scripture as they understand it to justify their transphobia. People are people. There are more differences I think within any given community (L or G or B or T or Q or straight or what have you) than differences between them.

As Rodney King said, "can't we all just get along?"

Purdue, I think that the Feminism 101 blog would be helpful to you in learning about those issues.

And as for "RadFem" events that exclude transwomen, well... I have mixed feelings. But I feel like, well, would a Jewish person want to force their way into a neo-nazi rally? Why would I want to go somewhere that I'm not wanted? Sure, it's not right, and it's unfortunate, but... Why keep butting my head against a brick wall? There are plenty of places I am welcome. And nearly everyone in every group can find an example of places they are not welcome. For example, I would wager nobody here would be welcome at a Promise Keepers event. And why would we want to go anyway?

I suppose there are valid reasons to try and fight exclusivity and exclusive events, but I think... and I sure can admit that not everyone may agree with it, but I guess it's just my nature... I'd rather nurture inclusion and ignore exclusion. Maybe that's a weakness in my character, but if there are women who do not consider me a woman and want an event without me there, it may not be right, but I'm not going to tell them they're wrong, just of a different opinion and at worst ignorant.

Now the moment a group decides to move that exclusion out of their event and try to implement it in wider society, then I'll have a problem, and then I'll make some noise. But in the meantime, do what you want.

But that's just my opinion.

Again, Elise and Mireille, like I already said, they are regarded as women by most radfems, but but they have very good reasons for wanting to have certain events focusing on biofemale upbringings without feeling stifled. I addressed the fact that the difference between Native and black exclusive events is that it doesn't have to do with the naming issue--calling it women's only, rather than a biobitch event or something like that. You're repeating things back to me which I never said and arguing points I've already clarified. You've clearly already assumed it's automatically bigotry because you're not responding to points I've actually made. The issue isn't fundamentally over how insulting it is to name it "women's event" and exclude transfolks, which implies they're not women. You're missing the point.

Mireille,

Sorry, I didn't see that you hadn't read the comments yet. My clarification directed toward you doesn't apply.

Seamas,

I'm not responding to you at all. Like I stated, I hadn't read all the comments yet, and had not seen any of yours yet. And as I said, if there are cisgender women only events, that's fine with me. I didn't say radfem=transbigot... But there are undeniably some transbigot radfems, just like there are some antifeminist transwomen. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm not saying you're wrong. But the black/native american analogy doesn't completely hold. Please don't be defensive... But there still is a certain amount of feeling that we are being told "yeah, you may be a 'woman', but you're not really a woman" when we are excluded. Is that what is implied or are we inferring it? It depends on who you ask. And I think one of the huge problems in this tired radfem/trans debate is each side taking such a hard-headed stance. The semantics involved can make arguments appear where there are none. We all just want to feel respected. We want our needs and boundaries recognized. But my respecting your desire to have bio-women only gatherings doesn't mean I can't feel somewhat excluded. And there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

Again, I was just expressing my opinion in a completely freeform way, not responding to anyone.

I would not be in favor of a straight-women-only space, and I'm not in favor of a ciswomen-only space.

EG, you're the only one making a cogent argument right now. I also indicated that I'd go to an inclusive event myself, but it is perfectly logical to have other delineations to focus on issues that only apply to certain subsets of any group. I don't like that there are anti-trans women out there who would take advantage of this, but that shouldn't upend the rights of biological women who attend all varieties of the events. What it comes down to is that some litigious transwomen don't listen to biowomen who say that their unique experiences, issues, and obstacles matter, and quite frankly, I think women are tired of not being believed that their experiences are different and matter.

Seamus, I think I can understand how you feel. A space devoted only to one group leaves them free to discuss experiences unique to them in security. Maybe there are transwomen that would disrupt such an event. But there are probably a number of transwomen that would find it enlightening. I understand that trans- and cis-gendered experiences are different. Just like straight and lesbian and gay experiences are all different. Maybe it's just a matter of what is expected from a closed event. And I know there are transwomen that will say there is no difference, and they're wrong, there is a difference. There's a difference between my experiences and other transwomen experiences, and there are differences between your experiences as a woman and many other women. So I guess... the question is, why should transwomen be excluded? Will they stifle the forum? Will they bully their way into the discussion? Will they try to take over the agenda? Probably some would.

I don't know. Is it a secret-club sort of thing? Is it a fear of oppression? The possibility of conflict? It's just more comfortable without others there? I suppose it doesn't really matter. I guess I just don't see what's wrong with letting others witness an event, if not participate. But either way, I'm not going to say it shouldn't happen. I just think I get why women-only spaces are wanted, and I understand why it makes some people feel bad.

And if my arguments aren't cogent, it's because I don't feel black or white about the issue and it's difficult to put my opinions into words. And I'm not really arguing... And I'm not going to sue you! What other people do, say or think doesn't change who I am.

Bleah! This whole topic gives me a stomach ache.

Julie Bindel assumes that all trans women are very feminine, all trans men are very feminine, and all transsexual people are heterosexual. Likewise, she assumes that gay men are feminine, and lesbians are masculine.

There's so much evidence to the contrary, I don't know where to start. It certainly doesn't help that society perpetuates these myths.

I'm a somewhat butch lesbian, and a trans woman. I transitioned from struggling to live as a masculine straight man to happily living as a woman. I'm not alone-- there are all sorts of combinations of masculinity/femininity/androgyny, gender identity and sexuality. That's what frustrates me most about Bindel-- she's actually perpetuating stereotypes in the name of her brand of feminism.

"I think women are tired of not being believed that their experiences are different and matter."

This is exactly WHY transwomen are a bit outraged. Because it is kind of devaluing us in general.

Just to inform you, if you really want to debate issues regarding male privilege, oppression, and the patriarchy, maybe it would be a good idea to listen to transwomen for a change, instead of excluding them.

To say we have a wonderful experience and had the benefits of "male privilege" is making alot of assumptions about transwomen, that if many cisgender women would actually listen, they would realize that male privilege is really only available for those who tow the line. There is an assumption that there was a completely normal male childhood, when that is rarely the case. One can view Ma vie en rose and see what happens when there is any gender variation. It is not uncommon for trans people, who grew up as gender variants (and many did) that they faced years of verbal, physical and sexual abuse stemming from who they were. So when ciswomen talk about how we experienced male privilege and socialization growing up, there is a reason why many transwomen come off completely outraged, that is why the term cisgender privilege, transphobia and transmisogyny is often bandied about when we face these attitudes. Childhood for us is often a living hell, so much so that a childhood lost is part of the trans dilect, and it often goes beyond just growing up as our target sex.

Like I said it strikes me as completely hypocritical to call a space "women only" and completely exclude transwomen. As if we have nothing to contribute, as our opinions are baseless, just because the way were born.

Also with regards to birth control issues, it strikes me a little odd that trans people are excluded since ALL trans people choose sterility just to be comfortable in our own bodies. There is also a lack of knowledge about the significant barriers and hurdles that trans people have to face just to determine what to do with their own bodies (oh wait, doesn't this all start to sound familiar), and the frequent misogynistic views we hear from the medical community, including those providing trans services. While the experience may not relate directly, there is a very common theme here, and it may be good to listen to somebody who is trans, and to drop this whole idea that transwomen have differant experiences, because especially in the medical field trans people face misogyny and the effects of the patriarchy first hand.

The reason why we find that when an event is woman only, yet excludes transwomen, such an outrage. Because it makes assumptions about our past, and our ability to contribute to any dialog. The problem we face is the fact that TRANSWOMEN are sick and tired of being called differant and saying our experiences do not matter what so ever because of our birth sex. There is a ton of assumptions that are usually attached to this, most of them which are not true. Sorry to say we are muscling in, and defending the women-born-women policy, to us comes off as completely bigoted. To transwomen, this is completely indefensible policy, and as much as you and those of your ilk say its creating boundaries, it is really just trying to justify your own bigotry and transphopbic. These policies are usually loaded with a ton of assumptions about transwomen, and completely devalues what transwomen can contribute to any dialog. So when something called a womens only event, and to exclude transwomen, because our experiences are a bit different, completely devalues our opinions and our life. This is something we have experienced growing up, its something we experienced during our adult life and through transition. So excuse us for being a little bitter, and seeing those who justify exclusion as hypocritical. You talk about not being believed and that experiences not mattering, yet those who wish to exclude us throw back the same twisted logic back in our face, saying our experiences do not matter. Its no wonder we see these people as bigoted, hypocritical and transphobic, because they completely devalue our experiences as women. To tell you the truth TRANS WOMEN are sick of being devalued just because we were cursed with the wrong genitals. We are sick of the assumptions about our pasts, and we are sick and tired of facing discrimination and bigotry no matter where we turn.

So we have every right to speak out against exclusionary and bigoted women born women policies. They ARE Hypocritical. Somebody who defends them and devalues the experiences of transpeople, especially transwomen has no right to be calling themselves a feminist. It is completely hypocritical to say you support feminism on the other hand make moves to discriminate against and exclude the most discriminated against group of women in America. Sorry the women born women policy is completely indefensible. It is saying, "I support the continued discrimination against the most segregated and discriminated against class of women in society, in fact I support the participation of this continued discrimination as well."

People wonder why transwomen are so outraged at this viewpoint, its not feminist by any means, it runs directly contrary to the core underlying principles of feminism and really only serves to exacerbate the patriarchies insistence on strict gender divides and the continued exclusion of those who defy them.

Again, Elise and Mireille, like I already said, they are regarded as women by most radfems, but but they have very good reasons for wanting to have certain events focusing on biofemale upbringings without feeling stifled. I addressed the fact that the difference between Native and black exclusive events is that it doesn't have to do with the naming issue--calling it women's only, rather than a biobitch event or something like that. You're repeating things back to me which I never said and arguing points I've already clarified. You've clearly already assumed it's automatically bigotry because you're not responding to points I've actually made.

At the risk of encroaching on your sovereign right to declare people “cogent� or otherwise, there is nothing wrong with assuming bigotry when the evidence of it is overwhelming. You are trying to have it both ways: strongly implying (while stopping just short of stating) that transwomen are not real women, while at the same time trying to say that there’s nothing bigoted about excluding transwomen from a “women’s event� (while simultaneously claiming that excluding transwomen from a “women’s event� is like excluding Native Americans from an “African American event�). That’s quite the razor’s edge you’re tiptoeing on there.

Of course, people who remember more than what you said half a paragraph ago, will remember that you referred to the transwoman you found so offensive as “he�, which does tend to indicate that you are not being entirely forthright on the matter.

I don’t know that I’d be criticising other people’s cogency with a track record like that.

Interestingly, you also exclude transwomen from your statement that "I think women [sic] are tired of not being believed that their experiences are different and matter." Try not to let your cards show so much; it insults the intelligence of your readers.

Hi, my name is Marti, and I'm a transsexual! ;)

I've come to this thread late, so I'm going to respond in multiple comments.

"Many feminists believe that the behaviours and feelings which are considered typically masculine or typically feminine are purely socially conditioned. I don't want to sound pissy but a lot of them are. And we've had this discussion a while back when there was a post about transgendered kids and the whole playing dress up, etc."

This story in the BBC isn't about transgender people, it's about transsexuals and the surgery they have. Transgender is an umbella term, for anyone that is gender variant and is not what is being discussed here.

"Wearing make-up and dresses aren't inherenitly female, there was a time when both men and women did that. The current concept in America of what's "masculine" and "feminine" didn't come into being until fairly recently, what with the shaving of the legs and under arms, etc."

As if that's what being transsexual is? You don't have surgery so you're able to wear dresses.

"I'm not transgendered but I consider myself a very masculine woman and often times it has to do with gender performance (again, wearing make-up, etc.)I don't like that stuff but I have no idea if it's because of something inante or what."

Being transgender and transsexual are different. Not all males are black, but some blacks are males. Not all transgender people are transsexual. Transgender is an umberalla term for vender variant people. Transsexuals are people that are recieving hormones and are on track for surgery.

"What gets me is that, hypothetically, if we had a society like that you saw in THX 1138 where there is no specific gender difference then what constitutes transgendered?"

I'd still live in this body. Testosterone and estrogen regulate how bodies behave, from body hair texture, skin, fat redistrobution and more.

"I know I probably sound ignorant but that's because I am:) I actually know very little about transgender issues and internally/mentally what that feels like. I just question that if there we didn't have gender performance how would that articulate itself."

I'm glad that you preface your comments. So many people pretend to know what it's like to be trangender or transsexual. And it's all well and good to talk about what ifs, but we have to LIVE in this society. It isn't some abstract idea, it's a reality.

"What I found most enlightening was talking at great length to the friend I mentioned above--she said something that struck me as quite significant. She said that talking about feeling as though one was a woman in a man's body was not, in her opinion, the technical literal truth, but was the best available way to express the feeling of being trans--that it is as close as our language allows in our cultural context, not a bedrock stone-set truth. Understanding that--understanding language as an imperfect medium for conveying a highly complex gender experience."

YES! THANK YOU!!!! The only thing I would disagree with is your use of the word "gender." I'm not going to have surgery to change my gender. I already live as a woman. Not all transgender people have surgery. Many live socially as women, but when they remove their clothing they are obviously male bodied. I've taken hormones going on six years and my penis isn't fully functional. I don't want the secondary sex charactaristics of a male. I don't want the effects that high doses of testosterone cause. The best way to fix all of these things is through surgery.

"Given that many if not most gendered behaviors are socially constructed, it doesn't seem to me to be that far-fetched to accept that in a given number of cases, the way that the socialization process interacts with a person's inborn character is going to produce a gender-identification that is counter to what was intended."

Julie wasn't discussing behaviors, she was discussing SURGERY.

"I've always supported the right of people to get sex change operations more on libertarian grounds than feminist ones. From a feminist point of view I have often been uneasy when I listen to transgendered people talk about their desire to change sexes. One event in particular sticks in my mind where a M2F friend of mine talked rattled off a long list of negative masculine stereotypes in his reason to become a her. I remember thinking you don't have to cut your dick off to not be a jerk."

GRRRRRRRRRRRRR. So you judge all transgender/transsexual people based on who you've talked to? For the longest time, I felt like your friend, but I couldn't articulate exactly how I felt.

"Many feminists believe that the behaviors and feelings which are considered typically masculine or typically feminine are purely socially conditioned. I don't want to sound pissy but a lot of them are. And we've had this discussion a while back when there was a post about transgendered kids and the whole playing dress up, etc."

This story in the BBC isn't about transgender people, it's about transsexuals and the surgery they have. Transgender is an umbrella term, for anyone that is gender variant and is not what is being discussed here.

""Wearing make-up and dresses aren't inherently female, there was a time when both men and women did that. The current concept in America of what's "masculine" and "feminine" didn't come into being until fairly recently, what with the shaving of the legs and under arms, etc."

As if that's what being transsexual is? You don't have surgery so you're able to wear dresses.

"I'm not transgendered but I consider myself a very masculine woman and often times it has to do with gender performance (again, wearing make-up, etc.)I don't like that stuff but I have no idea if it's because of something innate or what."

Being transgender and transsexual are different. Not all males are black, but some blacks are males. Not all transgender people are transsexual. Transgender is an umbrella term for gender variant people. Transsexuals are people that are receiving hormones and are on track for surgery.

""What gets me is that, hypothetically, if we had a society like that you saw in THX 1138 where there is no specific gender difference then what constitutes transgendered?"

I'd still live in this body. Testosterone and estrogen regulate how bodies behave, from body hair texture, skin, fat redistribution and more.

""I know I probably sound ignorant but that's because I am:) I actually know very little about transgender issues and internally/mentally what that feels like. I just question that if there we didn't have gender performance how would that articulate itself."

I'm glad that you preface your comments. So many people pretend to know what it's like to be trangender or transsexual. And it's all well and good to talk about what ifs, but we have to LIVE in this society. It isn't some abstract idea, it's a reality.

"What I found most enlightening was talking at great length to the friend I mentioned above--she said something that struck me as quite significant. She said that talking about feeling as though one was a woman in a man's body was not, in her opinion, the technical literal truth, but was the best available way to express the feeling of being trans--that it is as close as our language allows in our cultural context, not a bedrock stone-set truth. Understanding that--understanding language as an imperfect medium for conveying a highly complex gender experience."

YES! THANK YOU!!!! The only thing I would disagree with is your use of the word "gender." I'm not going to have surgery to change my gender. I already live as a woman. Not all transgender people have surgery. Many live socially as women, but when they remove their clothing they are obviously male bodied. I've taken hormones going on six years and my penis isn't fully functional. I don't want the secondary sex characteristics of a male. I don't want the effects that high doses of testosterone cause. The best way to fix all of these things is through surgery.

"Given that many if not most gendered behaviors are socially constructed, it doesn't seem to me to be that far-fetched to accept that in a given number of cases, the way that the socialization process interacts with a person's inborn character is going to produce a gender-identification that is counter to what was intended."

Julie wasn't discussing behaviors, she was discussing SURGERY.

"I've always supported the right of people to get sex change operations more on libertarian grounds than feminist ones. From a feminist point of view I have often been uneasy when I listen to transgendered people talk about their desire to change sexes. One event in particular sticks in my mind where a M2F friend of mine talked rattled off a long list of negative masculine stereotypes in his reason to become a her. I remember thinking you don't have to cut your dick off to not be a jerk."

GRRRRRRRRRRRRR. So you judge all transgender/transsexual people based on who you've talked to? For the longest time, I felt like your friend, but I couldn't articulate

I think one of the misconceptions here is that radfems have any sort of real power in society to throw around against other groups, in the grand scheme of things under the patriarchy. We don't, especially those of us who are lesbians.

Central to this debate is the assumption that transwomen are necessarily, automatically "more oppressed" that cisgender lesbian feminists. I don't think this question has a definitive answer, there can only be discussion and speculation. (Also this is obviously influenced by the race and class of the individual women). We all have unique experiences and I don't think it is particularly useful to quantify and compare oppression. The "who-has-it-worse" game can never be won, after all.

"I kind of get what you’re saying… but I still can’t quite comprehend what makes someone a woman, other than physically being female (whether you’re born that way or became that way through surgery and hormone therapy). So let’s say I am a person with a penis but I like to wear makeup, dresses and high heels. Does that make me a woman? Or just a man who likes to wear makeup, high heels and dresses?"

You can be transgender and not want surgery.

"Limiting ourself to the example at hand, some people have a deeply private personal preference (as if she wants or abhors a sex change operation) and then they build a theory why this preference is vastly superior, and why people who make opposite decisions are bad, stupid or misguided."

Can I get an amen?

"Liberal feminist decry limits on choice and opportunities: should women work or stay at home? Should the girls be dressed in pink? Should people who feel that they have wrong sex undergo operations to change their sex? Personal! personal! personal! Not so liberal people (radical?) think that one should take sides."

Exactly. It kind of reminds me of the gay marriage fight. If you don't like sex changes, don't have one! ;)

That's a cool response EG. I know that when I think of myself I think of myself in "masculine" terms and whenever I've had to dress up like a girl (most often when we go to straight dance clubs) I fell kinda like I'm in drag, especially if I'm wearing a dress. Oddly enough I love actual drag queens and their exaggerated femininity.

Many draq queens fall into the umbrella of transgender, but most times they aren't transsexual. (Drag is a gender performance). One of my lovers was a drag queen. She is transgender. She's never done hormones, but moves in this society as a woman. She's transgender, but isn't a transsexual.

"I was never the girl to want to play w/dolls and whenever my mother would take me shopping for clothes I'd always head to the boys section first because I thought their clothes looked better. All though high school I wore my dad's and my brother's hand me down pants and shirts (pants complete with belt). It was frustrating for my mother, (who would always pull the "it's my money" when she forced those flowery clothes on me) and for me 'cause I know she wanted a traditional girl. But she loves me and now she gets that I really just am not "feminine", though it really pleases her when she hears I bought something pink or I'm wearing a dress."

Even when I picture myself in my head I'm a lot more butch than I actually look, so seeing myself in a mirror is sometimes disappointing that I don't match to what's in my head. Though I did read a book by Joe Quirk called Sperm Are From Men, Eggs Are From Women and in that he detailed how sometimes in the womb female fetuses are doused with an extra bit of testosterone and male fetuses get that extra bit of estrogen. It doesn't make you gay or transgendered but it results in people like me, girls who like to rough house and skip the baby doll. (not saying that regular girls can't do this either, I just found that interesting 'cause it described me perfectly.)

What I find interesting about this is how society treats masculine women compared to feminine men. Do you think your mother could accept a male child that wore dresses all the time, instead of pants?

"You know, sojourner, I think that for a lot of us, or I should stop generalizing and say that for me, my image of transwomen was formed by mainstream media representations, until, of course, I actually met real transfolk. And that representation is a very femme-y one--high heels, hose, long hair, long nails, etc."

Again, can I get an amen? Stereotypes usually don't fit everyone. But what if a transwoman is very femme-y? Is that a bad thing? IMO, gender shouldn't be destroyed, it should be liberated from a sex binary (male=masculine=man/ female=feminine=woman).

I can't pretend to be have expert insight into what makes any of us have the gender identity we do; my feeling is that my identity as a woman is born of having to construct an identity on the subordinated side of the gender hierarchy. It's kind of easy to see how that happened for me; I'm not sure how it happens for transwomen, but until I learn how, I can accept that though their path to womanhood is somewhat different than mine, they get there just the same.

I agree totally, but I'd remind you that the BBC story was about surgery, not gender. I can transverse this society being viewed as female, while having male genitals.

“And re the girly image of trans women, it’s definitely true for me and I have never met a trans woman in person."

Unless you've done either a gene/jean inspection, how do you know this to be true?

"I have been struggling with this issue myself for some time. On the one hand, i believe unequivocally in transgender legitimacy and transgender rights. On the other hand, I do believe that the vast majority, if not all, of gendered behaviors are at least partially socially constructed. And on the third hand, I have my own experience as a gender atypical person. Growing up I felt very much like a boy trapped in a girl's body, very much a tomboy, mostly guy friends, and all that. As I got older and discovered feminism, I became much more at ease with being a woman, but I still identify as a butch lesbian. Aside from the occasional women's t-shirt, it's all guy's clothes and mohawks for me. I consider myself masculine and my whole life rejected femininity as something that I was supposed to be, but I feel 100% woman. If feminism had never happened, though, if I had never seen that I can be whatever I want to be as a woman, I think I would probably have ended up a transman."

So much to do about CLOTHES! And to think, we're accused of being caught up in fetishizing clothes! Having surgery isn't about gender, it's about having your gender identity and your body in sync. There's so much more to being transsexual than clothes.

This kind of thinking really angers me. It's as if there is some agenda afoot to destroy the lesbian community. Having top surgery and taking testosterone isn't about who you're having sex with.

"Men are respected more, your masculine identity is supported instead of questioned, and society tells us implicitly oh so often how much better it is to be a man. My butch girlfriend exclaimed to me one day after she and her mom got into a big fight about the clothes she wears, "This is why people transition!" Of course, this isn't true for all FTMs, but it does make me wonder to what extent is might be for some."

You used the label "FTM" but that's used under the context of transsexual, not transgender. Your girlfriend is wrong. People don't take testosterone because of societal pressures. This isn't a game. Many of the effects of hormones are irreversible.

"One of the reasons radical feminists often unfairly get the "transphobic" label is because they protest certain transwomen suppressing the right for biological females to have events in women-only spaces. Since certain women-only events have historically been co-opted by non-trans men until effectively quashed, they interpret this as an offront on women's autonomy and right to set limits. From what I understand, the same thing is happening in the queer community by marginalizing lesbian identities in favor of being lost in a broader queer-trans label. I am a new radical feminist and spoiled by heteronormativity, so please correct me if I'm misstating this issue.

So? Many women protest Augusta for its "men only" golf course. Your point is? A "woman's" autonomy? That gets to the point quickly, because it's obvious that I'm not a woman to you. You're engaging in biological essentialism.

I think that some semblance of gender identity can be inborn, but the social constructions surrounding them are sometimes fetishized by transwomen whose public well-being is hinged upon "passing" for female, hence the preoccupation with patriarchal lies about what women are. That preoccupation with oppressive constructions is what so many feminists find distasteful

The tricky thing in all this is, the only way you'd know someone is transgender is if they don't fully "pass." The truth in that is pretty ironic.

alicepaul:
I decided that I might have read the article the wrong way at first and went back and read it again. I stand by my statement. According to the article, Julie Bindel is "trying to persuade medics and trans people that sex change surgery is unnecessary mutilation." That's verbatim. I come from a fact-checking background, and she probably had chances to amend everything attributed to her. It's unfortunate that the BBC and other msm outlets have taken her arguments and passed them off as something all feminists or all radical feminists believe. She's allowed to analyze and critique all she wants, but Bindel is actively campaigning to make the medical world view transsexuals as mutilated people who shouldn't have agency over their bodies. It hits me viscerally; I can't help but feel angry at statements like that.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but many transition clinics here in the US follow the Benjamin standards of care, or worse, other methods that aim to reduce anyone seeking to transition medically to a pathology. It's hard enough to seek medical care without the additional burden of cost.

Additionally, I wanted to say that I appreciate what many other people have written.

"There is still a reluctance by many transwomen to call themselves feminist largely because of some of the writing during the early 1980's against transwomen by second wave "feminist", and because of the controversy surrounding the michigan womyn's festival and the controversy over the "womens only spaces issue".

I have more trouble IDing as a lesbian than I do as a feminist. So many people have differing ideas about what a feminist actually IS, while most people have concrete ideas about what a lesbian is.

"I am a firm believer that gender is a social construction and a perception, not biologically determined."

I don't think any transgender/transsexual person would disgree with you on that.

"As such, it is hard for me to grapple with the idea of children receiving hormonal suppression because they displayed behavior or preferences towards what society insists should be reserved for the opposite genitalia.:

Why is that? In those cases, the suppression wasn't done because of gender, but of birth sex. A case here in Indiana is the most popular one. The boy tried to cut his penis off with a pair of scissors. It's a matter of body, not of clothes or toys.

"However, when faced with arguments that playing dress-up, wearing gendered clothing or playing with gendered toys means that children should be given medically oppressive hormonal therapy because we sure wouldn't want a little boy to enjoy wearing dresses and makeup and playing with dolls SEEMS very counterfeminist.

"I still think that gender is a social construct and that it would be healthier to encourage children to pursue the desires and interests and shallow decisions such as what sort of pants to wear regardless of their genitals, instead of suppressing their hormones and bodies and telling them that their penis or breasts define them and should be hidden so that others will accept their lives."

"Having agency over your own body and health should be the case for everyone, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be on the agenda for some people."

That's why I wrote a post over at transadvocate.com titled "Pro Choice is Pro Trans."
http://transadvocate.com/blog/2007/06/28/pro-choice-is-pro-trans

The right to an abortion and the right have sex reassignment surgery (SRS) are essentially about the same issue, the right to have control over your own body.

I WAS indeed familiar with only one male who identified as female, and he did fetishize my body more than any misogynist I've encountered in my personal life. He was my boss, and I was too young and dumb to do anything about it. His actions represent a MINORITY of transwomen I'm sure, but that is the reason not all biological women want it to be mandatory for transwomen to be admitted into women's spaces--it's for the same reasons they want to be free of MEN sometimes.

Not all men contributed to negative experiences for women, so should they be mandatorily given the right to hang out in a battered women's shelter? Should lesbians be forced to let me into cordoned-off events because my experience of growing up as a girl trump their experience of growing up as lesbian girls? Give me a break.

So transwomen=men? I didn't know Michfest was about pitting one oppression with another. As for a battered women's shelter (and rape shelters), you don't think a transwoman can be battered or raped? I've been living this way for six years and have been sexually assaulted. Again, what I have issue with is that this is some type of battle of the sexes.

"Gendered behaviour is most certainly the product of socialisation; hence the significant cultural differences in what constitutes "masculine" and "feminine" dress and behaviour. Gender identity, on the other hand, shows remarkable resistance to even extreme social pressure.

One only need look as far as Asia to see how this resistance plays out. Transgender/transsexual people in much of Asia are the lowest of the low. I have a friend that lives in Malaysia, and she's struggled with this for very basic reasons. Living as a transwoman in Malaysia brings her poverty and violence, but living as a male is safe and secure. If this was all just socialization, do you honestly think people would chose to live under that type of oppression? I can't fathom it, personally.

" Basically he is just an all-around horrible person to be around. Ever since I started working with him and getting to know him my opinion of transgendered people has gone down. And I have to consciously remind myself that most transgendered people aren't like him. I'm sure most of them are great people. One bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch. So in all sincerity I thank all of you who are transgendered and have posted here to share your stories. I truly needed to be reminded that he is an exception and not all transgendered people are jerks."

Heh. That just proves transfolk can be just as ugly and mysgonistic as the rest of society.

For another thing, I wouldn't write your coworker off just yet. Perceptions and attitudes often change dramatically in the process of transition. A big part of transition is jettisoning the attitudes and behaviours that one learned as a way of passing as a man (in this case). Stereotyped, unnuanced, and sometimes even condescending attitudes about women (or men, as the case may be) are not entirely uncommon in pre-transition transpeople both as part of the need to pass as the gender they're perceived to be and due to the fact that, despite their identity, they have not yet had an opportunity to experience what lifeis like as a person of the gender to which they are transitioning.

EXACTLY! I can't tell you how much my own perspective on all things gender, have changed since transitioning. It's different than I thought in a 1000 different ways. The biggest thing is safety. I never realized how much safer I was, living as a man.

"And as for "RadFem" events that exclude transwomen, well... I have mixed feelings. But I feel like, well, would a Jewish person want to force their way into a neo-nazi rally? Why would I want to go somewhere that I'm not wanted? Sure, it's not right, and it's unfortunate, but... Why keep butting my head against a brick wall? There are plenty of places I am welcome. And nearly everyone in every group can find an example of places they are not welcome. For example, I would wager nobody here would be welcome at a Promise Keepers event. And why would we want to go anyway?

:) That's why I'll never go (Unless I need an Indigo Girls fix, and they're playing there).

""It depends on who you ask. And I think one of the huge problems in this tired radfem/trans debate is each side taking such a hard-headed stance. The semantics involved can make arguments appear where there are none. We all just want to feel respected. We want our needs and boundaries recognized. But my respecting your desire to have bio-women only gatherings doesn't mean I can't feel somewhat excluded. And there's nothing wrong with that, is there?"

Very true. I think that's where these kind of debates tend to head south. When respect isn't given or perceived, that's when the arguments tend to fall into personal attacks, instead of valuable educational exchanges of ideas.

A space devoted only to one group leaves them free to discuss experiences unique to them in security. Maybe there are transwomen that would disrupt such an event.

You know, the problem I see with this is this: aren't there cisgendered women who would disrupt such an event as well? What's keeping them out? And I wonder what we're talking about when we talk about security--are we talking about the security to make privileged assumptions without having them challenged? Because I don't believe that anybody deserves that kind of security. I think that I really don't understand what the fear is--I don't understand what it is some cisgendered women worry transwomen will do to disrupt their events.

You make the point that it must be bigotry because transpeople aren't oppressing women in a patriarchal society, but having the right to set limits, having the right to autonomy for just one goddamn time in women's lives, is what it's about--not where a person is on the hierarchy.

But not all women are gaining the right to set limits in this situation, are they? Only cisgendered women are, and as with your use of "I think women are tired of not being believed that their experiences are different and matter," I am troubled by your use of "women" to mean "cisgendered women." You don't seem to have trouble dismissing the idea that transwomen's experiences should matter in any meaningful way at an event supposedly being held for women. Just because a given group of women is setting boundaries does not mean that I find the boundaries morally acceptable--a group of women with a given privilege in common banding together to set a boundary excluding women without that privilege doesn't strike me as a particularly admirable example of boundary-settting.

Here is where I think we differ: I don't think any privileged group has a moral right to create exclusionary groups based around that privilege (barring situations like group therapy where individual health and healing are at stake)--straight only, white only, male only, cis only. I think that such groups, in the vast majority of the time, will work to reinforce the privilege of pretending that the subordinated group doesn't exist, that their experiences do not matter. I do think that great good comes out of subordinated groups creating safe spaces where they can experience themselves as the norm.

Alicepaul, I agree with you that little is gained and much is lost by playing a game of who's less privileged on an individual basis--but that shouldn't prevent us from acknowledging categories of privilege, either. Certainly Radical Feminists do not wield a great deal of power in the mainstream, but they have influence within the feminist movement, which is what I understand us to be talking about, and when women claiming to speak for Radical Feminism throw their weight into reinforcing the animosity, distrust, and "ooh, icky" reactions that transwomen have to cope with both in the mainstream and in the feminist movement, that the movement is harmed and transwomen are further marginalized. Further, I sincerely believe that just as it is of utmost importance for white feminists to recognize the history of racism in the feminist movements as well as its history of positive activism, and to keep that history in mind when considering current positions on issues affecting black women disproportionately, so too is it incumbent upon cisgendered feminists to recognize the quite nasty history of transphobia in the movement and make efforts to amend it. When cisgendered women are discomfitted that way, we need to strongly consider the possibility that it is the productive discomfort of the privileged encountering the people at whose expense that privilege exists.

mzmartipants, I do apologize for conflating transgender and transsexual in my posts--very sloppy of me, and I do and should know better.

You know, while I do understand that transpeople lack the privilege of a cisgendered experience and childhood, I do think that a politically aware transperson can bring some personal awareness of what social privilege is--I'm thinking in particular of an interview with a transwoman I could have sworn I read years ago in which she spoke about realizing that her colleagues--the same colleagues she'd worked with prior to transitioning--were interrupting her, talking over her, and not listening to her ideas in meetings after she'd transitioned, and that at first she'd thought "Hey, they're treating me like a woman!" and after a bit she started to think "They're acting like assholes!" (All my paraphrase, of course!) But then again, this is a fuzzy memory of something I read years ago and couldn't detail if my life depended on it, so perhaps I'm mistaken.

You know, the problem I see with this is this: aren't there cisgendered women who would disrupt such an event as well? What's keeping them out?

I had had that thought also. There's something odd about a supposedly feminist group that would be more welcoming to Beverly LaHaye than to Kate Bornstein.

I do have to say that Radical Feminists are being done a serious disservice by being lumped in with transphobic elements in society. The fact is that there's nothing particularly "radical" — much less "feminist" — about discriminating against women who don't fit within conventional notions of who and what women are or should be. There's another word for that view: patriarchy.

Google "Jennifer Oriel" and you'd find her praise for the imfamous 2004 Australian trans-excluding "LesFest". Her use of terms such as "men who identify as transgender" instead of women is just a low point in her comments.

Oriel and her "mentor" Sheila Jeffries are just two of the most evil and unrepentant transphobic bigots who promote "womyn born womyn" and have the nerve to call themselves "feminists".

They are a disgrace to the gender and if it were up to me people like Oriel and Jeffries would be rotting in a cell but sadly it's not up to me.

It is important to remember that there isn't a single Right True "Feminism" or way to be a feminist. I disagree with many other feminists on issues like the media, porn, class, lesbian/queer stuff, etc - but I do NOT call other feminists evil phobic bigots. I call them "women with perspectives that are different from mine." Seems fair to me. I think it is so easy to call someone racist or transphobic, and name-calling often functions to avoid or replace any intelligent arguement.

People seem to conflate radical feminism with liberal/mainstream/third wave feminism a lot. No, not all feminism is centered specifically and directly on equality, inclusion, and choices. Radical feminism, for instance doesn't seek equality with men and inclusion in their space AS MUCH AS it seeks freedom from male oppression and patriarchal systems of dominance/submission. The heart of the radfem movement is less about "we can do anything just as good as they can" and more about "let's get their fucking boots off of our necks and start a revolution."

The point is, I think it is perfectly fair for women like Sheila Jeffreys and Janice Raymond to claim to speak from/for a particular sub-category of feminism/ists. Criticize them all you want, but remember just because it isn't YOUR kind of feminism doesn't mean it is ANTI-feminist.

"They are a disgrace to the gender and if it were up to me people like Oriel and Jeffries would be rotting in a cell but sadly it's not up to me."

For what, not liking you? Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them evil. Oriel and Jeffries are WRONG, but they're not evil. Hitler, Pol Pot, and Bush, were/are evil.

What would you throw them in jail for, wrong ideas? That's Orwellian.

"The point is, I think it is perfectly fair for women like Sheila Jeffreys and Janice Raymond to claim to speak from/for a particular sub-category of feminism/ists. Criticize them all you want, but remember just because it isn't YOUR kind of feminism doesn't mean it is ANTI-feminist."

I don't think I understand this. So if there were a group calling themselves white power feminists, and actively apposed woc as women, you'd still consider them feminists? I'm not trying to be snotty, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you can be against part of a group that actively tries to suppress another and still consider them feminists because they support some women? I'm confused.

kissmypineapple:
"In another post, we talked about how difficult it is to make a man understand the magnitude of motherhood/pregnancy, etc., because they will never experience it. I imagine it is equally difficult to put into words what it is to be a transgendered person."

Not a perfect example, only a real life one, but how about 'Beach of Steel' by John Varley? His characters (in this book in particular, others works deal with a society in wich transgender is only begining so it's hard on the characters) change sexes when their psiques demand, and no one makes a fuss abour it.

Also, I don't know if it has a translation to English, but 'El hombre Estrella'('The star man'?) by Gabriel Bermudez del Castillo deals with a man in a society where men are socialized to be as woman, and he keeps the main character a man while also gender-constructed as a woman.

It is important to remember that there isn't a single Right True "Feminism" or way to be a feminist. I disagree with many other feminists on issues like the media, porn, class, lesbian/queer stuff, etc - but I do NOT call other feminists evil phobic bigots. I call them "women with perspectives that are different from mine." Seems fair to me. I think it is so easy to call someone racist or transphobic, and name-calling often functions to avoid or replace any intelligent arguement.

One of the more irritating aspects of society today is that it is actually more frowned on to call someone a bigot than it is to actually be one. If the term "feminist" can be rightly applied to those who ostracise women who don't fit into conventional moulds, or who similarly defend privilege, then the word has no meaning. Feminism encompasses a wide array of perspectives, but when you reach a certain point (and including those who believe that women who don't fit conventional moulds aren't women would be such a point), it's hard to see what feminism could rightly be seen as not encompassing.

Similarly, there are all kinds of atheists, but I don't think anyone could rightly be criticised for saying that a "god-fearing atheist" was no atheist at all.

Heart who blogs at Women's Space/The Margins has a great take on the issue of transactivists co-opting terms like "lesbian," "dyke," & "woman," as well as social spaces for cisgendered females etc.:

"This is colonizing behavior. It is cultural imperialism. The members of a community themselves, when we are talking about a marginalized, oppressed, people group, as lesbians are, as women are, have a right to autonomy, self-definition and the defining of our own in-group/out-group boundaries."

I don't think that sentiments like this are at odds with certain types of (e.g. second wave radical) feminism in any way, and I think the analogy to white supremacists is absurd because it suggests that radfem lesbians have some level of real social/political clout, which we really fucking don't. Also, the "god fearing atheist" doesn't compare either, because the core definition of radical feminism (or actually even mainstream feminism) says absolutley nothing about transsexuals, while atheism is defined strictly as the belief that god doesn't exist.

Heart continunes:

"[radfems] have become the easy stand-in for for the real enemy, white male heterosupremacy. We are the easy, easy, easiest of targets, because we have little power and even less money."

I'd be interested to know how many commenters have an adequate understanding of the 1970s radical feminist movement's aims and theories, as opposed to just a vague sense of third wave, mainstream, equality-based feminism.

"This is colonizing behavior. It is cultural imperialism. The members of a community themselves, when we are talking about a marginalized, oppressed, people group, as lesbians are, as women are, have a right to autonomy, self-definition and the defining of our own in-group/out-group boundaries."

The whole notion of women co-opting the term "women" (and lesbians "co-opting" the term "lesbian, etc.) already shows the level of bigotry at work, not to mention the extreme level of ignorance of the actual phenomena at work, both of which are exemplified in The Transsexual Empire.

Where does the right end? Can any disfavoured (less privileged) group of women be excluded from the very definition of "woman"?

The question is not whether radical feminists — whether or not they by definition base their definition of womanhood on patriarchal conventions — have political or social clout in society at large, but rather how their status and power compare to those they seek to exclude. Whether they have more clout than corporate America or the GOP is simply irrelevant, since trans women have substantially less than either.

Oriel's statement on LezFest is on this page - http://www.theage.com.au/yoursay1/2003/09/12/index2.html

Oriel and her boss Jeffreys are bigoted and wrong that is one thing i am sure of.

Elise, you may note Oriel's use of the misspelling "womyn" that you rightfully ridiculed earlier in the thread.

Elise, you may note Oriel's use of the misspelling "womyn" that you rightfully ridiculed earlier in the thread.

A superficial thing that reflects the superficial habit of thought that allows this kind of bigotry to flourish.

"The question is not whether radical feminists — whether or not they by definition base their definition of womanhood on patriarchal conventions — have political or social clout in society at large, but rather how their status and power compare to those they seek to exclude. Whether they have more clout than corporate America or the GOP is simply irrelevant, since trans women have substantially less than either."

Exactly. A oppressing B doesn't guarantee that B can't oppress C.

I'm reminded a bit of those people who'll admit domestic violence can happen in white non-immigrant families but have the "he can't be hurting her, look at how oppressed he is by colonialism!!!" attitude if any other kind of guy hits his wife.

Exactly. A oppressing B doesn't guarantee that B can't oppress C.

There's even some evidence to indicate that it makes it more likely that B will oppress C, where C is someone of less privileged status than B. Kicking downward is the one thing the oppressed won't be punished for.

Which is why we see all of these "men's rights" groups springing up amongst largely working class and lower middle class men. If they were to start attacking the people who really oppress them, they'd be smacked down immediately. But instead, they imagine themselves oppressed by women, and act on this by trying to curtail or eliminate the gains women have made, an arrangement that is more than agreeable to people in power, since the oppressed work off the anger and aggression inspired by being oppressed without doing anything that puts power in danger of changing hands.

Elise, I think your argument is very interesting and sophisticated...however, it assumes unequivocally that indeed "C is someone of less privileged status than B."
(When C are transwomen and B are cisgendered lesbian feminists).

MANY radical feminists flat out disagree with this assertion, and others simply find reality more complicated and nuanced. Personally, I think many factors influence an individual's privilege/lack of privilege (including race, education level, language, career, and especially for mtfs, the point/age of transition). I DON'T agree that cis women, as a class, automatically oppress transwomen as a class.

MANY radical feminists flat out disagree with this assertion, and others simply find reality more complicated and nuanced. Personally, I think many factors influence an individual's privilege/lack of privilege (including race, education level, language, career, and especially for mtfs, the point/age of transition). I DON'T agree that cis women, as a class, automatically oppress transwomen as a class.

Are these the same radical [sic] feminists [sic] who declare that these women are not women? Certainly, it is true that not all cisgendered women oppress all transwomen, but that does not change the fact that transgendered women are socially and economically overwhelmingly more frequently and more extensively marginalised that cisgendered women.

However, it is not entirely relevant here that there are plenty of cisgendered women who do not actively oppress transgendered women. At a bare minimum, any woman — even those who trick themselves into believing they're somehow radical or feminist for doing it — who discriminates against transwomen, particularly to the extent of even excluding them from the definition of "woman", is actively oppressing the women thus discriminated against and dehumanised.

Interestingly, as in the case of the "men's rights" movement, the oppression and opprobrium are accompanied by incoherent slogans about "empires", "cultural imperialism", and other rousing calls to arms against the foe who will invade us and take all we have. True to form for the socially acceptable activity of kicking people with less of a voice than oneself.

"At a bare minimum, any woman — even those who trick themselves into believing they're somehow radical or feminist for doing it — who discriminates against transwomen, particularly to the extent of even excluding them from the definition of 'woman', is actively oppressing the women thus discriminated against and dehumanised."

Good point. It also leaves me wondering if they'd include transmen in the definition of "woman."

Having been involved in a couple of these dust-ups, I'm surprised this didn't occur to me before, but I think it's kind of funny (not ha-ha-funny, but ridiculous-funny) that the arguments about how the stereotypical transwoman is brought up, i.e. all about being weak and girly and clothes and makeup and blah, blah, blah... When those transwomen obviously don't identify as feminists (yet). I would think by the mere fact that we are posting in a feminist forum would show that we do not conform to those stereotypes, so bringing them up is pointless. It's like using bible verses to argue with an atheist. I mean, yes, there are transwomen that fit that stereotype, but I doubt they'd be fighting for inclusion in feminist circles... They'd be to busy trying to be Paris Hilton.

Having been involved in a couple of these dust-ups, I'm surprised this didn't occur to me before, but I think it's kind of funny (not ha-ha-funny, but ridiculous-funny) that the arguments about the stereotypical transwoman is brought up, i.e. all about being weak and girly and clothes and makeup and blah, blah, blah... When those transwomen obviously don't identify as feminists (yet). I would think by the mere fact that we are posting in a feminist forum would show that we do not conform to those stereotypes, so bringing them up is pointless. It's like using bible verses to argue with an atheist. I mean, yes, there are transwomen that fit that stereotype, but I doubt they'd be fighting for inclusion in feminist circles... They'd be to busy trying to be Paris Hilton.

Thanks to the transwomen who are posting. You are keeping this from being just so much speculation. Thanks, too, for commenting with compassion. I admire that. I think I would find it maddening to be marginalized and confronted by some of the people who should be your most likely allies.

Since I am a cisgendedred woman, I have the luxury of merely finding it discouraging when it happens to others. Since I perceive feminism as critical to living happily and healthfully as a woman, I am also saddened to see women of any ilk alienated from any feminist goings-on.

Please do bear in mind that most of the women-only contexts that have formed over the years have been mere adjuncts to women’s exclusion from things men valued. It makes sense, in this light, that people who form something they perceive as an autonomously valuable women-only space would be protective of it.

My personal belief about that is that it is ethically questionable and counterproductive. I respect where it is coming from, even though I do not think it is right for me. This is admittedly an easier stance for me to take than if I were a transwoman. You very rightly, in my opinion, perceive it as prejudice. Again, I find it admirable that people have been able to argue for themselves here with patience and compassion.

It might be involuntary and unfair, but by virtue of who you are, you push the envelope. Because of that, you have much to bring to the table. Communities and events that welcome you and honor your perspectives will probably evolve. There are feminists of all genders out there who embrace that.

"transgendered women are socially and economically overwhelmingly more frequently and more extensively marginalised that cisgendered women."

I. Don't. Agree. With. This.

Please stop assuming this theory as a given. It isn't.

The way I see it, male born people have an advantage over female born people. And before anyone screams "that is biological determinism!" let me explain.

Biological determinism would argue that one's anatomy dictates their identity, expression, abilities, psyche, etc. I don't believe that. HOWEVER, I DO believe that the genitals one is born with dictate the way the outside world treats them, and their relationship to the patriarchy.

I think that people born with cunts are immediately and automatically more disadvantaged than people born with cocks. I respect anyone's right to identify as they choose, to alter their body, etc. But that doesn't change my feeling that, more than anything else, the patriarchy hates and seeks to control people born with cunts.

So yes, I believe that the privilege of being male born trumps the privilege of being a cisgendered woman.

Please stop assuming this theory as a given. It isn't.

It's not a theory. It's a fact. Transwomen are much more likely to be victims of violence, much more likely to be unemployed, underemployed, or forced into employment as sex workers, much more likely to become homeless (given the substantial likelihood of complete ostracism that comes with being trans), and much more likely to face invidious discrimination in any context.

Of course, if a transwoman "passes" well, all these factors even out pretty well with cisgendered women.

I DO believe that the genitals one is born with dictate the way the outside world treats them, and their relationship to the patriarchy.

In a funny way, one could almost say you're right. As long as one does not openly express any dissatisfaction with the genitals with which one was born, the torment is generally just internal. The patriarchy then views the transwoman as any other man. The minute a transwoman comes out and makes any effort at obtaining necessary medical treatment to deal with the condition, however, the transwoman's status receives a substantial downward adjustment. So, you see, having a penis (and/or other visible masculine features) does affect how the patriarchy treats you when you express female gender identity.

If only your disagreement could make these bleak facts go away; so many lives could be saved. The only thing that is clear is that you do not know much about this subject, and are trying to fill in the gaps with convenient abstractions.

Alicepaul,

You are free to disagree. I don't think transsexual women are necessarily more marginalized than cisgender women, or vise verse, and I don't see the point in arguing about it. Some cisgendered people probably have it better than others, and some transpeople have it better than others... It all depends more on how well we conform with societal norms. You might not consider yourself marginalized if you weren't a feminist. But not all women are feminists (unfortunately). My mother, a very conservative christian woman, for example, probably does not consider herself marginalized in the slightest.

I think your argument assumes that all transwomen obviously appear to be men in dresses if you think they are treated as people with cocks, as you put it. Which sort of says something about what you think of transwomen, whether you realize it or not.

I. Don't. Agree. With. This.

The Punctuation of Childish Rage doesn't change the facts either. Look them up rather than trying to plug up your ears.

I think your argument assumes that all transwomen obviously appear to be men in dresses if you think they are treated as people with cocks, as you put it.

And it's somewhat amusing to assume that people in dresses who look like they might have cocks are somehow treated better than anyone (let alone treated better than people wearing dresses who don't look like they might have cocks).

I understand this level of defensiveness. It's quite common. Essentially, in a situation like this, a person has two basic options of how to perceive herself.

The first option is to see herself as valiantly holding the line against encroachments from privileged intruders who seek to subvert her hard-fought space. Reality aside, this one just feels good, which is why the men's rights movement is convinced it's fighting against "matriarchal oppression", the KKK think they're fighting to defend the country from non-white hegemony, homophobes convince themselves they're protecting our culture from perversion, etc.

It feels good to believe that, much better, in fact, than the alternative, which is to see oneself as oppressing and marginalising people who are already socially weaker than oneself.

The theory of cognitive dissonance predicts that, when faced with the choice to interpret facts as either showing them as noble and righteous or showing them as pricks, people will generally avoid the latter.

Denial is a normal reaction to the realisation that one might be doing some oppressing. It's the only way to protect one's self-image.

Nobody is treated worse by the dominant group than a member of that group who rejects his or her membership.

People who seek to join the subordinated group end up getting the subordination (such as that of women as a group). They also get to be almost universally treated as despicable by members of the dominant group (such as male heterosexual transphobia). However, getting marginalized and treated as despicable by members of the subordinate group (such as cisgendered female transphobia) has got to be the shittiest part of the bargain.

Elise -

While I certainly cannot and do not claim to speak for transpeople, I assure you I am not entirely ignorant of the subject: I have a degree in Gender Studies, I was in a relationship with an FTM for two years, and accompanied him to many trans social events, where I listened with an open mind to transwomen's stories, politics, and experiences. I have read "Whipping Girl," Judith Halberstam and Les Feinberg. I do not base my perceptions of transpeople on their images in the heteronormative media.

But I still don't think transwomen as a class are automatically more oppressed than cisgendered lesbian feminists.

Also, don't forget that not all women (male born and female born alike) wear dresses!

It is very unfortunate that trans people have painful internal torment, and I cannot pretend to know what it feels like. However, one's internal sense of self doesn't change their social status in the patriarchy.

Let's go on with the extreme yet imaginative analogies. I'm a white woman. If I felt like a woman of color, and claimed this as an identity, the world would still see me as white and treat me as such...even if I appropriated outward signifiers of other cultures/ethnicities. Furthermore, I think women who were born of color might be an eensy weensy bit offended, and rightfully so, especially if I demanded entry into their spaces and claimed to have been oppressed my entire life.

"I think that people born with cunts are immediately and automatically more disadvantaged than people born with cocks."

...and this seems to apply more to early childhood.

"It's not a theory. It's a fact. Transwomen are much more likely to be victims of violence, much more likely to be unemployed, underemployed, or forced into employment as sex workers, much more likely to become homeless (given the substantial likelihood of complete ostracism that comes with being trans), and much more likely to face invidious discrimination in any context."

...and this seems to apply more to adolescence and adulthood.

Maybe you're both right?

It seems technically possible for some transwomen to suffer more disadvantage than some women who aren't trans (more likely to be disowned from their families as young adults, etc.) *and* for some transgirls to suffer less discrimination than some girls who aren't trans (more likely to receive medical attention for curable diseases as infants, etc.).

If you think radical lesbian feminists have the same power to discriminate and oppress as white male heterosexuals, you are waaaaay out of touch with reality.

My impression of what you are saying: "The lesbian feminist is just in denial of her oodles and oodles of social and political power! She's crazy! She's only imagining her oppression! She gets pyschological gratification from pretending she's a victim! People with penises actually have it WORSE than people with cunts in a cunt-hating, cunt-raping patriarchy!"

Who sounds like the MRA now? I'm not buying it.

What does it matter who is more marginalized? What does it matter who is more disserved by the status quo? Whether the marginalization and disservice are relatively new or old? Cisgendered women and transwomen are on the same side of marginalization and the status quo.

In patriarchal societies, maleness is normative and women are the “other.� Rejecting women who were not born as women only serves to defend our own special brand of otherness. It does nothing to challenge it.

OK, not only. It also rejects opportunities for constructing gender in a way that works better for more people. It also devalues and denigrates transpeople.

You can either get on board with transpeople or you can support the patriarchy. Deal with it.

"My impression of what you are saying: 'The lesbian feminist is just in denial of her oodles and oodles of social and political power! She's crazy! She's only imagining her oppression!'"

Hmm.

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/opt1106/4.htm#_Toc148851338

When an Arab woman in the Gaza Strip says a guy in her family is sexist, do you get the impression that she must mean "The Palestinian man is just in denial of his oodles and oodles of social and political power! He's crazy! He's only imagining his oppression!"...?

"My impression of what you are saying: 'The lesbian feminist is just in denial of her oodles and oodles of social and political power! She's crazy! She's only imagining her oppression!'"

So oppression is ok if the oppressor is also oprressed? That's patriarchy HANDS DOWN! Keep the lower people arguing amongst themselves while the rich heterosexual white men laugh.

And the race argument is tired and weak. Transsexualism is transsexualism, not transracialism (or whatever it might be called). And people DO try to cross race boundaries. Hell, what's a "whigger" except a white person "trying to be black"? And they're mocked for it no matter how sincere. And some black people are mocked for being too "white". It's ridiculous that someone can't celebrate any culture no matter what color their skin is, if they feel a kinship, if it moves their soul. Everything is ok if it stays in the box.

And uh...

"People with penises actually have it WORSE than people with cunts in a cunt-hating, cunt-raping patriarchy!"

Who are you talking about? I don't have a penis... Is it "once a penis (male) always a penis(male)?" You're betraying your bias. That argument says to me that you don't see transwomen as women. (And men in dresses is just a figure of speech... I don't wear dresses very often, either.)

If you don't consider transwomen to be women, it is your right in a free country to feel that way. But don't try to give me a bowl of shit and tell me it's chocolate ice cream. Either we're equal or we're not. Either I'm a woman to you, or I'm not. If you say "you're a woman, but..." then I'm not a woman in your eyes. There can be no but if you want to claim that you have no bias. If you have a bias, just own it. It's your right. I'd rather be a bigot than a hypocrite, but that's just me.

"So oppression is ok if the oppressor is also oprressed? That's patriarchy HANDS DOWN! Keep the lower people arguing amongst themselves while the rich heterosexual white men laugh."

You are absolutely right on this. Left wing in-fighting is ultimately pointless and destructive. The whole Divide and Conquer thing serves the interests of the patriarchy. But I think transactivists are equally as guilty of instigating this as cisgender lesbian feminists. (Perhaps more so, by hurling the words "transphobic" and "bigot" around to shut off/invalidate any opposing viewpoints)

I think it is possible to see transwomen as equal human beings who deserve rights, respect, and dignity WITHOUT believing they are A) in the same category as cisgender women in terms of lived experience and B) immune to male privilege.

I guess I just don't understand what you mean by male privilege. Is this the privilege of being fired from a job after 8 years of high performance reviews for no reason other than my boss was uncomfortable around me? If that's the case, you can have ALL my male privilege. I really don't understand how you think that being a transwoman is somehow still privileged. Do I have it worse off than you? I won't even attempt to figure that out. Some people have it better than me and some people have it worse. It doesn't matter. If you mean we aren't immune to it in that we are oppressed and subjected to it, then yeah, you're right. If you think we wield some sort of power, we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I sure don't feel it. How can you know that, anyway? Is it because of all the glamorous, rich, powerful transsexuals we see in the movies all the time? I cannot know what it is like to be a cisgendered radical lesbian feminist, so I'm not going to tell you what your life is. You cannot know what it's like to be a hetero trans feminist, so how can you tell my what my life is? There are obnoxious pushy transwomen that want to barge into and overtake feminist causes. That's not me, and we all have to stop stereotyping. Other than that... I'm not sure what else to say... But I'll probably think of something later.

"I guess I just don't understand what you mean by male privilege."

Maybe any male privilege you had back when everyone who knew you thought you were male because you were too young to tell anyone the truth about you being female, and what (if any) of that better preparation may continue to help you in adulthood? Privilege isn't necessarily permanent...

"I think that people born with cunts are immediately and automatically more disadvantaged than people born with cocks."

...and this seems to apply more to early childhood.

Actually, you might be surprised to hear that the opposite is the case. Gender-variant children — especially those who were assigned male — are extremely likely to be subject to abuse by parents, teachers, other authority figures, and peers alike as a result of it. Mental health admissions, suicide attempts, running away, substance abuse, and the like are quite common in those not lucky enough to have unusually supportive people around them.

While I certainly cannot and do not claim to speak for transpeople, I assure you I am not entirely ignorant of the subject: I have a degree in Gender Studies, I was in a relationship with an FTM for two years, and accompanied him to many trans social events, where I listened with an open mind to transwomen's stories, politics, and experiences. I have read "Whipping Girl," Judith Halberstam and Les Feinberg. I do not base my perceptions of transpeople on their images in the heteronormative media.

I was wondering when we would hear an argument from authority in this discussion. Holding a degree in a subject, while not an excuse for ignorance, is also not a guarantee for knowledge. Nor, of course, is having had a relationship with a transperson. By bringing up these irrelevancies, alicepaul hopes to insulate herself from criticism and use these ostensibly-somehow-relevant facts as proof that she cannot possibly be a bigot (cf. "My best friends happen to be black," "I own Roots on DVD!")

Of course, since the argument from authority isn't a guaranteed winner, she has resorted to completely mischaracterising what others have said:

My impression of what you are saying: "The lesbian feminist is just in denial of her oodles and oodles of social and political power! She's crazy! She's only imagining her oppression! She gets pyschological gratification from pretending she's a victim! People with penises actually have it WORSE than people with cunts in a cunt-hating, cunt-raping patriarchy!"
If you think radical lesbian feminists have the same power to discriminate and oppress as white male heterosexuals, you are waaaaay out of touch with reality.

Seasoned to perfection with the throwaway insult:

Who sounds like the MRA now? I'm not buying it.

I imagine that alicepaul is not the only one "not buying it". By scrolling up and reading carefully, she would have easily found that precisely no one was arguing that lesbians and radical [sic] feminists [sic] had the same amount of power and privilege as men, nor was anyone saying that all people with penises have it worse than all who lack it. Nor was anyone saying that cisgendered women are not oppressed. These are much easier arguments to refute, which is probably why she selected them, but it's simply not what anyone here is talking about.

Perhaps alicepaul sincerely thought that that is what the others here have been saying — though it's admittedly rather hard to see how — in which case I would hope she takes this as an opportunity to re-read the comments she has so totally mischaracterised, and to respond to what was actually said. If, on the other hand, she understood exactly what was said and chose instead to mischaracterise it in insulting ways, there are, of course, conclusions to be drawn from that, as well.

Elise if you wish i can find Jeffries op-ed attacking the Australian Family Court for supporting a kid called "Alex" that wanted to be a boy rather than a girl - it's sick that she can get away with such bigotry and not be called on it or punished.

I only talk about Jeffries as she styles herself a "leader and activist" - there are plenty of low-rank transphobes.

Elise if you wish i can find Jeffries op-ed attacking the Australian Family Court for supporting a kid called "Alex" that wanted to be a boy rather than a girl - it's sick that she can get away with such bigotry and not be called on it or punished.

I don't care much about punishing transphobes or any other kind of bigot. I think it would be counterproductive. I just believe in exposing bigotry as what it is. These days, now that open bigotry is (for the most part) not acceptable in polite company, it's become more dangerous than ever, since bigots couch it in terms that seem unobjectionable: "reverse discrimination", "crime problem", "culture of poverty", etc., all terms that are superficially neutral and thus more likely to suck in those who don't know what's below the surface.

"Actually, you might be surprised to hear that the opposite is the case. Gender-variant children — especially those who were assigned male — are extremely likely to be subject to abuse by parents, teachers, other authority figures, and peers alike as a result of it. Mental health admissions, suicide attempts, running away, substance abuse, and the like are quite common in those not lucky enough to have unusually supportive people around them."

Actually, this doesn't surprise me. When I said "early childhood" I was thinking of earlier than this (y'know, before anyone else can tell that the child is gender-variant).

Actually, this doesn't surprise me. When I said "early childhood" I was thinking of earlier than this (y'know, before anyone else can tell that the child is gender-variant).

Well, that's often very early — often as early as the first 12-24 months. In a lot of cases, it starts as soon as the child is able to express anything at all. I would imagine that they would likely fit within the norms for their assigned gender in terms of how they are treated, though things often sour quite soon therafter.

This comes as no surprise to me at all. This line of thinking is common amongst the anti-sex work, rad-fem crowd. Janice Raymond comes to mind. In fact, according to the SAGE Project, Inc's tax returns, they make the transgendered sex workers who are court ordered to take their class go to john school instead of putting them with the "true" female sex-workers.

I don't get why people are so surprised by the bigotry being spewed by the rad-fems. They have been spewing sexist rhetoric towards all men (the majority of whom are not evil rapists) from the get-go. Their entire belief system is based on bigotry and segreggation, and I think that is quite clear just from reading this thread.

I swear, at times their hatred makes me think I don't want to be associated with feminism at all anymore, and having identified my self as such for roughly 20 years, that's saying a lot.

I don't get why people are so surprised by the bigotry being spewed by the rad-fems.

Let's not lump authentic radical feminists in with this lot. They call themselves "radical feminists" (sounds nicer than bigots), but it's just a name. In fact, if you hear someone calling him or herself "radical", "alternative", or "extreme", the one thing you can be sure of is that they're anything but.

"By bringing up these irrelevancies, alicepaul hopes to insulate herself from criticism and use these ostensibly-somehow-relevant facts as proof that she cannot possibly be a bigot"

I positively do NOT wish to insulate myself from criticism. The personal information I provided was supposed to give you some context of where I am coming from in relation to the topics we are discussing. I didn't want anyone to think that I had never spoken to a transwoman before or read any relevant literature on the subject, is all.

In fact, I think the word "bigot" is being used here to insulate you and others from criticism. When a complex argument is boiled down to "the evil bigots" and "the people who are always right no matter what," you can bet which side people want to be on, regardless of whether the division is valid (and we all know that few things in this world can be cleaved into good/right vs. evil/wrong, with no grey area, short of maybe Hitler)

When one resorts to personal attacks, as Elise has done, I think this points to a defensivness and weakness of argument. I never questioned any individual's background or credentials, I only focused on the broader issues.

Also, if we are getting personal, I'd like to know what makes me a bigot. As I have already stated, I DON'T object to the human rights of transpeople (like education, safety from violence, housing, employment, self-expression, the right and freedom to make medical choices, etc). I certainly don't hate anyone. And, I recognize the difficulties transpeople have in all of the above areas, as well as the basic problem of gender disphoria as much as a cisgendered person can. Finally, I realize that I have limitations when it comes to understanding the experiences of other groups.

Characterizing my perspective as bigoted and hateful is simply inaccurate.

And, whoa, as for this little gem:

"They have been spewing sexist rhetoric towards all men (the majority of whom are not evil rapists) from the get-go. Their entire belief system is based on bigotry and segreggation, and I think that is quite clear just from reading this thread.

I swear, at times their hatred makes me think I don't want to be associated with feminism at all."

Are you SERIOUSLY calling feminists sexist man-haters? Is your argument so bare and flimsy that you have to pull out that tired old jab? That one comes straight outta the patriarchy handbook, I'm afraid. It reminds me of the "reverse discrimination" claims. "It's really the big bad scary RADFEMS that are intolerant, discriminatory meanies!" (As if we have any social or political leverage!)

I also find it absurd when people (usually men but some women too) threaten to withhold their allegience to feminism if we bitches get too uppity! You know, if we assert our humanity and it happens to step on the toes of those with privilege (in this case, male born individuals).

Oohhh maybe if we shut the fuck up and make nice, the boys will like us more!!!!

I'm a feminist, not the fun kind. - Andrea Dworkin.

Also, if we are getting personal, I'd like to know what makes me a bigot. As I have already stated, I DON'T object to the human rights of transpeople (like education, safety from violence, housing, employment, self-expression, the right and freedom to make medical choices, etc). I certainly don't hate anyone. And, I recognize the difficulties transpeople have in all of the above areas, as well as the basic problem of gender disphoria as much as a cisgendered person can. Finally, I realize that I have limitations when it comes to understanding the experiences of other groups.

Once again, alicepaul is hoping that people have not mastered the "scroll up" technique. On repeated occasions, she has contrasted transwomen with "women", thus rather explicitly showing that she does not consider these women to be "real" women, and even attempted to claim that this is not bigotry. She has even gone so far as to accuse these women of "co-opting" the word "woman". She described as a "great take" on the issue the following quote, in which transwomen are accused of "cultural imperialism" for simply being who they are and asking not to be discriminated against:

Heart who blogs at Women's Space/The Margins has a great take on the issue of transactivists co-opting terms like "lesbian," "dyke," & "woman," as well as social spaces for cisgendered females etc.:
"This is colonizing behavior. It is cultural imperialism. The members of a community themselves, when we are talking about a marginalized, oppressed, people group, as lesbians are, as women are, have a right to autonomy, self-definition and the defining of our own in-group/out-group boundaries."

(emphasis supplied; note that she cannot even bring herself here to refer to these women as women, preferring the pejorative "transactivist")

After others pointed out the problem with endorsing views like these while claiming not to be a bigot, alicepaul suddenly came out with her Gender Studies degree and the fact that she had been in a two-year relationship with a transman, specifically stating that this somehow proved that she did not get her views on the subject from the media.

It is also worth noting that she did not take the opportunity to re-read all the posts she mischaracterised and respond to what was actually written, nor did she even dispute that she mischaracterised them (while proceeding to engage in more mischaracterisation). At least she does do us the courtesy of not pretending that her characterisations of our words were defensible.

While the Dworkin quote was a cute addition, we still have not heard how it is feminist to denigrate and discriminate against women just because don't meet patriarchal expectations of what women are and should be.

I think that about does it.